Sitting of 15 November 1973

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

    Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further plans he has for a meeting with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have no plans at present for such a meeting.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am sorry to hear that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement which was made by Dr. Fitzgerald, the Foreign Minister of Eire, in Dublin on Tuesday regarding the progress which has been made by his Government towards the future conference on a Council of Ireland? Will he tell us what progress has been made here and when he hopes that the conference will take place?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be sorry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the Prime Minister of the Republic not long ago. There are always opportunities for further meetings as and when appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Dr. Fitzgerald saw me last week. I had confidential discussions with him. I do not wish to go further at present.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave discontent in Northern Ireland because of the comments reportedly made by the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republican Government that he wants a Council of Ireland with powers which would interfere with the internal affairs of Northern Ireland?
    640
    When my right hon. Friend next meets Dr. Fitzgerald, will he tell him that the people of Northern Ireland do not wish the constitution of Eire any longer to claim sovereignty over Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I shall stick to the point which I have made. I have had discussions with Dr. Fitzgerald. Those discussions were confidential. Dr. Fitzgerald is entitled to make his speeches and I am entitled to make mine. I think that we will stay where we are.
    Mr. Orme: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of how soon he hopes that even exploratory tripartite talks may take place on a wide basis about a Council of Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, the negotiations which I am conducting are at a delicate stage. I would rather say nothing at present. I realise the need for urgency.

    Livestock Smuggling
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to reduce the inducement to smuggle livestock into the Republic of Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): Every effort is being made to apprehend those responsible for smuggling pigs into the Republic and discussions are taking place with the Republic to try to overcome this difficult problem.
    Mr. James: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is there any information to suggest that smuggling has increased since the House prohibited the export of animals for slaughter? Are more animals now being subjected to longer sea voyages?
    Mr. Mills: The short answer is "No". Much depends on the animals concerned. The smuggling which takes place is mostly pig smuggling. There is legitimate trade in other livestock.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the treatment and conditions of livestock in transit between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
    Mr. Mills: Absolutely.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Under the EEC regulations, is the movement of livestock in either direction illegal?
    Mr. Mills: Obviously there are EEC regulations regarding pigs. Levies have to be paid when they go into the Republic. The smuggling takes place because there are other advantages in the Republic, which means that a higher price can be paid for the pigs there than in Northern Ireland.

    Executive
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress toward the setting up of the Northern Ireland Executive.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of talks to form an Executive for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Whitelaw: My talks with the Alliance Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist Party continue to make useful progress, and I will make a statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks. Does he concur that the attitude of those in Northern Ireland who are trying to achieve a political settlement of the problems there commends itself to the House, and that the attitude of those who are trying to frustrate a political settlement is condemned by the House in general and by himself in particular?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have said both things in the past. I applaud the statements of those on all sides who are seeking to reach an agreement on a constitutional basis under the law of the land, that law being passed by this Parliament with the agreement of all parties in it. I applaud the statesmanship of those who seek to reach a settlement on that basis. I can only deplore those who by unconstitutional means are seeking to bully the Government and Parliament. Those who seek by constitutional means to oppose the Government are perfectly within their rights. I hope that no one will seek to blur the distinction which exists between constitutional and unconstitutional means.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's personal rôle in the talks. That is widely appreciated. I hope that the talks will come to a successful conclusion. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will not be a debate on Northern Ireland until the talks reach a conclusion?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have to bear in mind that the House is anxious for a debate, and I understood that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave a indication last week that one will be announced. I think that a debate would be valuable whatever the exact situation of my talks might be.
    Mr. Fitt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while considerable progress has been made in the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland, it would be foolish to set a time limit on them because many obstacles still have to be overcome before an Executive can be formed? Does he not also agree that it would be not only foolish but extremely dangerous to set up an Executive which would be in danger of collapsing at the first signs of stress?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the last point put by the hon. Gentleman. On the first point he and I both feel the need for speed where at all possible, and we have to bear that in mind.
    Mr. McMaster: Can my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the setting up of an Executive, the proportions of Unionist, SDLP and Alliance members will reflect their strength in the country as shown in the elections for the Assembly and in the earlier plebiscite?
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which have to be carefully taken into account during the discussions.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Following the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the upsurge of violence in Northern Ireland in the last few days, may I ask whether he is aware that he will get full support from the Opposition in dealing with those who, as usual when there is a sign of politics moving in Northern Ireland, are trying to use violence to prevent it from happening?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that those who

    643
    may have thought that it is possible to bully or coerce the United Kingdom Government and Parliament will realise that that will not happen.
    Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will place in the Library copies of the papers prepared by him as a basis for discussion between the party leaders in Northern Ireland with a view to the formation of a Northern Ireland Executive.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. These documents were prepared for confidential talks.
    Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we understand that when delicate negotiations are going on papers for discussion must remain confidential, there is considerable public anxiety and, indeed, harmful misrepresentation taking place about what is happening in these talks and that the sooner something can be said to allay public anxiety, particularly when things are being done behind the backs of the electorate, the better?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing is being done behind the backs of the electorate. I made a very full statement on one set of talks about the constitutitonal position under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and another full statement about law and order. Both statements were made public for everyone to see.
    I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that when the talks are concluded, and if, as I hope, it is possible to put forward proposals for the formation of the Executive, the full basis on which that is done will be set out for this House to consider.
    Mr. Fitt: Is the Secretary of State just as confused as I am about the different types of Unionist Party represented in this House? Does he agree that, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is a member of the Unionist Party, it would be open to him to go to his leader, Mr. Faulkner, who is involved in the talks, and ask to see these papers?
    Mr. Whitelaw: One thing I have learned about Northern Ireland is that it is wise for me not to comment on any parties there, and I do not.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not curious—I exclude my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—that those who have threatened to destroy the Assembly and the Executive are now taking a slightly more constructive interest in these matters?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is so. They said at the start that they had no wish to take any part in the talks, that they had no desire to see an Executive formed and that they would do everything in their power to stop it being formed. They cannot contract in and out. If they have contracted out, they cannot hope to take part in the talks.

    Constitution
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The constitutional position of Northern Ireland is that set out in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend take careful heed of what is said in the Kilbrandon Report about representation here of Northern Ireland? Will he realise that some of us think that Kilbrandon underestimates the proper representation here? May we in this House have available the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously, discussions about the Kilbrandon Report are continuing and it would be wrong for me to anticipate discussions inside the Government and in the House. I will look into my hon. Friend's suggestion that the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Assembly should be available in this House.
    Mr. Fitt: With regard to the constitutional position in Northern Ireland as it stands, and with particular reference to the action which the Secretary of State had to take on Monday morning following the unconstitutional activities over the weekend by Unionist extremist forces, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, within hours of his banning those two illegal organisations, a statement was issued by them declaring

    645
    their intention to continue with unconstitutional activities—with bombings and killings—and to give their full political support to the political parties which are led by Mr. Craig and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and that as yet Mr. Craig and the hon. Member have not dissociated themselves from these organisations?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman said in his first point and I can only lay emphasis and further stress on my remarks about unconstitutional action. It would be wrong for me to seek to interpret statements which may have been made either by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) or, indeed, by Mr. Craig. They must make their own statements, but I trust that they will completely dissociate themselves from violence and unconstitutional methods—and do so unequivocally, if I may say so.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does not my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is completely wrong and dangerous for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to suggest that these are Unionist groups? They have nothing to do with the Unionist Party. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the people of Northern Ireland have the right, as the people of Great Britain have the right whether they be on the Labour or the Conservative side of this House, to push the Government to follow policies which they believe right? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in Northern Ireland feel that the constitutional proposals are not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think I dealt with my hon. Friend's point in a previous answer. I said that it was perfectly proper for anyone in any democratic society to oppose the actions of any Government by constitutional means. No one can doubt that. It is equally not right for people to oppose Parliament and Government by unconstitutional or violent means. The important point is that that distinction should not be blurred in any way.
    I never suggested, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggested, that these people were Unionists. He referred to organisations which I found necessary to pro-
    646
    scibe on Monday. I stand by my decision to proscribe them and I make clear that I did so because I believed—indeed, I had more than reason to believe—that one of the organisations concerned was responsible for the bombings. Indeed, one of the organisations subsequently came out with an admission that it was responsible for the bombings, so my action was justified on its own admission.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not important, whatever mix-up there might be about who supports whom, that anyone who is a democrat, who stands for election, should say not just to the IRA but to the UFF and other oganisations that they are wrong? Does not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that some hon. Members in this House who have been elected ought to stand up and be counted? I have here a document from the UFF which says
    "we give our 100 per cent. support to … the Democratic Unionist Party and the Loyalist Coalition"
    and that it is responsible for bombings. Should not someone say "We do not want support from the likes of you"?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I can only say that I hope that action on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be taken by those concerned.

    Firearms and Terrorists
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will give the latest statistics for the latest available year as compared with the previous two years for (a) the discovery of illegal firearms and (b) the detection of terrorists.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): Up to 12th November, 1,421 illegal firearms had been recovered this year by the security forces. This compares with figures of 717 and 1,264 for the whole of 1971 and 1972 respectively. Some 1,246 people have been arrested and charged this year with terrorist offences. Exactly comparable figures for 1971 and 1972 are not available, but in these years 659 and 769 people respectively were convicted of terrorist offences.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful for those figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British people have every reason to

    647
    be extremely proud of the outstanding work done by the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining law and order so patiently and effectively? Do the figures include not only convictions in court but also those who have been detained? Does my hon. Friend agree that at the top of the list for discussion at the first Council of Ireland meeting should be the need for closer co-operation between the British and Republican Armies in maintaining law and order?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure the whole House will echo what my hon. Friend has just said about the Army and the RUC. My figures do not include those who have been detained, but up to the same date in 1973 a total of 366 people had been detained by the commissioners. Lastly, the public statement made by my right hon. Friend about the constitutional talks makes clear the importance he attaches to working with the South in matters of security.
    Mr. Duffy: In view of the present rash of sectarian assassinations and the proscription of the two organisations last Monday, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the claim in the Observer by Kevin Myers last Sunday that in almost three years of daily travelling in Protestant areas he had not been stopped or searched by the Army but that on the previous Tuesday alone he was stopped four times and his car searched once?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: It is long-established practice not to make comments from the Dispatch Box about individual articles in newspapers. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are always receiving, properly and rightly, complaints from both sides about the way in which people are stopped in all quarters of Belfast in the effort to maintain the peace.
    Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Can my hon. Friend tell us the number of British soldiers killed in the same period as compared with the previous year?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would need notice of that question. I will gladly write to my hon. and gallant Friend. I may add that the figure shows a diminution.
    Mr. Fitt: On the question of the detection of terrorists and the two organisations that were banned in the earlier part of the week, will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the exercise will not stop there? Will he say that there will be a ruthless follow-up to find all who are members of the proscribed organisations or are giving support in any way? Will the same impartiality be shown when detecting terrorists of different political persuasions?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I can give an absolute assurance that exactly the same standards will be applied on both sides. The Government are determined to get at terrorism, whoever may be responsible.
    Mr. McMaster: While I welcome the work which the security forces have done in the past year, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the tempo of violence and the number of explosions, deaths and injuries in the past 12 months have been very much greater than in the previous two years? Is he aware that one of the reasons for this was the existence for more than three years in Northern Ireland of "no-go" areas where terrorists could prepare for their violent activities? Does he appreciate that, if the security forces had wished to take the offensive against the terrorists three years ago, they could have brought this violence under control very much more quickly? What steps are they taking to end violence?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Although I am sure he says it in good faith, my hon. Friend is not right when he says that there has been an increase in tempo. I am glad to say this and to make it clear that since the days when the security forces entered the "no-go" areas there has been a downward trend in terms of violence.
    Mr. McNamara: While welcoming the tremendous improvement that has taken place in the security position, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the concern in the whole House over the recent spate of extremist bombings in the past fortnight and some of the particularly hideous crimes which are reported to have taken place in Belfast? Is he further aware that there is real concern that the security forces should now show an even-handedness between both sides

    649
    of the community? Does he realise that it would be helpful if we could get figures giving a breakdown of the number of searches in various areas and the arms seizures in those areas, because it would appear that from now on the security forces must lay increasing emphasis on areas which they have neglected in the past?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give figures for any particular category I will gladly do so. He will find that there is evenhandedness when it comes to the administration of justice and the repression of terrorism. I agree that there have been some foul crimes, not only on the Protestant extremist side. The murder of the boy abducted from a training school was perhaps one of the nastiest episodes we have so far experienced in Northern Ireland.

    Housing
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the monthly average of home starts in Northern Ireland for 1973, and how this compares with 1972, 1971 and 1970; what are the reasons for the drop; and what steps are being taken to stop the decline.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): The monthly average of house starts in Northern Ireland over the first nine months of 1973 was 803, compared with 908 in 1972, 1,192 in 1971 and 1,003 in 1970. The decrease in activity in the public sector is largely due to the effects of the disturbances, particularly in redevelopment areas. Every effort is being made to overcome these problems, but a full recovery in the programme must depend upon a return to normality in the disturbed areas.
    Mr. Mills: Are not these figures of great concern since the housing starts programme seems to be running into considerable difficulties? In underlining the great need which exists for additional housing in Northern Ireland, particularly for those coming from areas of tension, and also recognising the great difficulties which exist in this whole subject, may I ask my hon. Friend to intervene and try to pinpoint the particular problem areas for house starts and to give every assistance in trying to solve the problem?
    Mr. Howell: I am glad to do that and every effort is now being made to pinpoint the difficulties. My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point when he talks about areas of tension. We are dealing with a situation in which there has been enormous movement of the population, with a great reluctance on the part of certain people to live in areas where they may feel themselves in danger. As a result there is a very difficult situation when it comes to providing houses in places where people are willing to live.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the reduction in housing starts in Northern Ireland is no greater in percentage terms than it is in this country? If he attributes the reduction in starts in Northern Ireland to violence and uncertainty, to what does he attribute the fall in this country?
    Mr. Howell: This is not my responsibility. Those who are familiar with the scene in Northern Ireland recognise the situation as particularly difficult. The Housing Executive does an extremely difficult job very efficiently, and I believe that it deserves credit for what it does.
    Mr. Fitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many thousands of homeless families in Northern Ireland, particularly in North and West Belfast, who have been forced to leave their homes as a result of intimidation by one set of extremists or another? Is he further aware that the Housing Executive has placed a limit on the amount of money it is prepared to pay to buy homes to rehouse these people and that the figure of £3,500 is completely unsatisfactory and is causing a great queue on the housing list? Will he say that he will have a further look at this figure to see whether it is possible to increase it?
    Mr. Howell: I am acutely aware of the severe housing shortage and the overcrowding in West Belfast and other areas. I am not sure about the figure to which the hon. Member refers. If he is referring to the civil disturbance purchase scheme, this is something we have been reviewing. It is making progress and I am confident that we will be able to overcome the difficulties and make it even more effective.
    Mr. Stallard: May I draw the attention of the Minister to an article which

    651
    appeared recently in the Sunday Times dealing with the activities of property speculators in Belfast? Is he aware that this article mentioned the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) who raised this question? Will he accept from those of us who have had experience of these same property speculators that we would not want this problem to be transferred to Belfast?
    Mr. Howell: I am not in a position to comment on newspaper articles of a speculative kind.
    Mr. Mills: On a point of order. I apologise for intervening, Mr. Speaker, but as my name has been mentioned I think the House should know that shortly after that article appeared The Times on 9th October published a full apology saying that there was no connection between either myself or any company with which I was associated and the items to which the article referred.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive about manpower shortages in the repair and maintenance sectors.
    Mr. David Howell: None, Sir, but close liaison exists between the Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Housing Executive on the general question of the supply of construction manpower.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that, in the flexibility of interpretation of stage 3, statutory bodies are at a disadvantage compared with private contractors? Will he therefore encourage the Housing Executive to make greater use of private contractors for repair and maintenance work?
    Mr. Howell: It may be that my hon. Friend has a particular point in mind. If he will write or contact me I will gladly take it up with him. I think he is talking about a specific point.

    Border Security
    Mr. Maginnisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on border security following the recent incidents on the
    652
    Armagh border at Bessbrook, Newtownhamilton and Crossmaglen.
    Mr. David Howell: The security forces take all practicable steps to counter the activities of terrorists in border areas, including increasing co-operation with security forces in the South. Additional measures are being taken; a number of unapproved roads have been closed with the full co-operation of those immediately concerned in the area.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the essential element in controlling terrorist activity in Northern Ireland is to have a strong force on the border? Will he give the House an assurance that border security will be stepped up so that people living in these areas, especially in South Armagh, will have the full protection of the law? Will he also give an assurance that the Ulster Defence Regiment will be made much better use of in future than in the past?
    Mr. Howell: It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that the border situation is one important factor in the overall security situation. When it comes to deployment of security forces I think he will recognise that the more there are on the border the fewer there are in the cities. It may well be that a view has to be taken overall about the best way in which the security forces can be distributed. I fully concur that the Ulster Defence Regiment is doing a valuable job. Constant support and encouragement is given to it because we believe that it has an essential part to play in the overall security effort.
    Sir P. Bryan: Does the increase in incidents indicate any deterioration in the military intelligence available to our forces?
    Mr. Howell: I do not want to comment on intelligence as such. The general point that is commented upon is that, as successes have increased in city areas, inevitably there has been a movement towards trying to make more trouble in the border areas to draw the troops away. This is believed to be one of the strategies. Moving troops to the border areas in a massive way would be responding to what the terrorists want.
    Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the increased activity by terrorists along the border areas, may I ask why the Government have withdrawn 1,200 soldiers from Northern Ireland and, I understand, are to withdraw an additional 600 before the end of the year? Why are they not used on the border area?
    Mr. Howell: The requirements of troops are kept under continuous review in the light of the security situation. There has been increased terrorist activity on the border area, but in the last few days we have also seen vicious terrorism in Belfast of a particularly unpleasant kind. This, too, has to be reckoned with.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he is planning in the name, structure or organisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have consistently made clear, the RUC will remain the police force in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McMaster: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer as far as it goes, but he has not said anything about the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary which has caused some concern in my constituency. Is he aware of the concern that is felt by many senior officers in the police force about the requirement that in future they must have two years' experience outside Northern Ireland before being eligible for further promotion? Will he look into that matter? In many cases it will be impractical to expect senior officers to leave Northern Ireland for two years at this stage.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would hope that my original answer was extremely clear. Indeed, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a very proud title. It will remain the police force in Northern Ireland.
    My experience from discussions with senior police officers is that, like officers in other forces in the United Kingdom, they will recognise the great value of experience at some point in a man's career in a force other than the one in which he spends the greater part of his time.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition welcome the fact that the Police Federation of the RUC has recently had discussions with political parties, including the SDLP? This has not happened before, and we hope that it augurs well for the future. In this regard many of us believe that stage 3 is idiotic, but it is more particularly idiotic when applied to Northern Ireland. What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Police Federation's recent claim and the Government's refusal to make special payments to the RUC?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I also welcome, and am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to, the increasing contact between the political parties and the Police Federation. I will avoid commenting this afternoon on the particular financial matter. On the broader question, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a very important and far-reaching speech by the Chief Constable yesterday about the rôle of the RUC in future. I think that will repay study.

    Convicted Persons (Prison Sentences)
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland are currently serving their sentences in gaols outside Northern Ireland, and if he will publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Eighteen. It would not be in the interests of the prisoners concerned to publish details.
    Mr. Stallard: I appreciate that reply. Does the Minister accept that, while no one condones the terrible crimes that have been committed either here or in Northern Ireland during the past few years—of course, our sincerest sympathy must go to the unfortunate victims of those crimes—many young people now in gaols in this country are themselves the victims of a repressive and violent background? Will he use his influence with his right hon. Friends to have as many of these prisoners as possible transferred to gaols near their homes so that their relatives, often elderly and infirm, can visit them regularly?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested

    655
    in a case where the crime was committed not in Northern Ireland, to which the Question refers, but in Scotland. Therefore, any question of moving that prisoner would not be a matter for me. I have said that 18 prisoners convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland are serving their sentences in gaols outside the Province. That has generally been because they have made a request, under the ordinary procedures, to be so transferred.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Earlier today my hon. Friend mentioned the case of a mentally retarded boy of 15 who had been abducted from St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Training School by the Provisional IRA and subsequently murdered. Will he assure the House that an inquiry will be set up to look into the circumstances in which three men could take two boys from that school at lunch-time and the school not notify the authorities that the boys had been taken until one was subsequently found dying?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Intensive police and security force inquiries are going on into that matter. It would not be appropriate for me to say more at present.
    Mr. O'Halloran: How many prisoners are still in gaol following the introduction of internment in 1971?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. That process has been superseded by one of detention. I will give him the exact figures, if he wishes, of those at present in detention, but, as he will know, they include members of both communities.

    Common Law Enforcement
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make an announcement about his response to the common law enforcement area proposed by the Minister for External Affairs in the Republic of Eire.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot yet say, but the proposals are being examined.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep resentment felt throughout Northern Ireland at the idea that the Dublin Government should seriously suggest a modification in the existing British judicial system which would mean that British citizens would be tried by the courts of a foreign State for
    656
    crimes committed within the United Kingdom? Does not my right hon. Friend regard that as an arrogant and unacceptable proposal?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think that my hon. Friend will have to consider this matter in the broadest possible context. Complicated legal issues are involved. If my hon. Friend and others, with whom I strongly associate myself, find it difficult to accept the position when extradition happens to exist as a one-way traffic and we are not able to get people extradited from the South because of the present legal process, they have to realise that if there were a change in that situation it could be of great advantage to all concerned. If, in the interests of security throughout the whole of Ireland—North and South—there were greater co-operation, which would mean more co-operation across the border, that could only be in the best interests of everyone concerned. That is the basis upon which all these discussions are proceeding.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Opposition hope that this idea will be considered seriously because, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, after a political solution has been found security will remain one of the basic issues to be dealt with.
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is undoubtedly true, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I add only that no one can doubt the importance of close co-operation between the authorities in the North and the South as a means of ending violence.

    Agricultural Support
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of agricultural support in Northern Ireland in the latest available year.
    Mr. Peter Mills: The total cost of agricultural support in Northern Ireland in the form of United Kingdom grants and subsidies in 1972–73 was £34,940,000. This figure does not include the cost of grants carried on Northern Ireland Votes to cover schemes to help to counter the effects of remoteness and to create and maintain employment.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he give the House

    657
    some indication of the future of these special schemes to promote agricultural production in Northern Ireland which were launched about a year ago? Is it intended to keep up the schemes or to wind them up?
    Mr. Mills: The aid scheme to poultry farmers has ended. The other schemes will continue because we believe that they help to provide full employment in Northern Ireland, which is so important now.

    Brucellosis
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in brucellosis eradication in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Mills: In Northern Ireland, after a period of voluntary testing, compulsory eradication of brucellosis began in dairy herds in 1963 and in beef herds in 1965. I am happy to say that by the end of 1971 infection was reduced to a level which satisfied the Ministry of Agriculture that Northern Ireland should be declared a brucellosis-free area.
    Complete eradication of the remaining small amount of infection has proved difficult but it is hoped that the further control measures introduced recently will help in this respect.
    Mr. Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask whether he is satisfied that all practical steps are being taken to minimise the spread of this disease from the Republic of Southern Ireland?
    Mr. Mills: Indeed, and we have started to take further steps to deal with this problem. New regulations are about to be announced.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of outbreaks which have occurred in Eire are a cause for alarm? I notice that the Minister for Agriculture in Eire admitted that only six of his 26 counties were brucellosis-free. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that everything possible will be done to tighten control and movement?
    Mr. Mills: Yes, Sir. The new regulations will help to deal with the problem that we are experiencing from the Republic.

    Hill Cattle Scheme
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the hill cow scheme in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Mills: In the five years ended 1972 the number of claims paid under the Hill Cattle (Northern Ireland) Scheme has risen by 1,300. In this period there has been an increase of 41,000 in the number of cows eligible for subsidy. The scheme plays an important part in encouraging farmers in Northern Ireland to utilise hill land and to produce stores for beef production.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he give serious consideration to the possibility of extending the scheme to the marginal areas which are now outside its scope?
    Mr. Mills: I am not able to comment on that now, save to say that a deputation has been to see me about this very matter and that we are considering it.

  MIDDLE EAST (EUROPEAN SUMMIT MEETING)
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the letter from President Pompidou proposing a European summit conference to discuss the Middle East.
  Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Heads of the Governments of other member States of the EEC.
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the text of President Pompidou's letter proposing a European summit conference on the Middle East and the text of his reply.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): A summit meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the European Community is expected to be held on 14th and 15th December in Copenhagen. I warmly welcome this.
  The position of the French Government was explained in an official French statement on 31st October, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Lamont: Can my right hon Friend say what representations the Government have made, either by themselves or in conjunction with our European partners, about the treatment of prisoners-of-war in the Middle East? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the good news about the exchange of Egyptian and Israeli prisoners, there is great concern in Israel about the treatment of prisoners of war by the Syrians? Unless the Syrians observe the Geneva Conventions, an eventual peace settlement might be endangered.
  The Prime Minister: On three occasions Her Majesty' Government have made representations to the Syrian Government about Israeli prisoners of war. We have urged that the Geneva Conventions should be observed in full and that prisoners should be returned to Israel. We have also told our partners in the European Community about the representations we have made. I recognise the Israeli concern about these prisoners. That is one of the matters which Mrs. Golda Meir raised with me in our talks at the beginning of the week.
  Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on one occasion Machiavelli observed that the precondition to a foreign policy was a capacity and will to defend oneself? As Europe lacks both the capacity and the will, a European foreign policy is somewhat futile.
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is obvious that the Community, having been enlarged only at the beginning of this year, has not had time to develop a full foreign policy. I should have thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that defence policy follows foreign policy. The fact that there has been agreement between the Foreign Ministers of the Community about the European identity and its relationship with the United States and that there is to be a summit in the middle of December on these political affairs shows that progress is being made.
  Mr. Tebbit: Can my right hon Friend say what attitude he will take at that meeting towards the speech of Chancellor Brandt at Strasbourg on Tuesday?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the German Chancellor made a number of
  660
  important points in his speech at Strasbourg on Tuesday When we had talks together on Monday of this week at No. 10, he told me about the speech that he was proposing to make at Strasbourg. It is a speech of such importance that I do not think I should deal with the individual items. I have no doubt that much of it commands the support of the members of the Community.
  Mr. Maclennan: What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the oil-producing countries since the Foreign Ministers' meeting about the predicament of Holland in particular?
  The Prime Minister: What we have done is to point out to the other countries with which we are in contact the nature of the declaration by the Foreign Ministers of the nine members of the Community, including the Netherlands, and to emphasise the importance of it.
  Mr. Roberts: Have any positive demands for action by this country been made by the Arab States? If so, can my right hon. Friend tell us what they are? Secondly, will he assure the House that the British Government will stand by their present impartial peace-seeking policy?
  The Prime Minister: No demands have been made by Arab countries upon this country. The British position, as has been repeatedly stated in the House, in the United Nations, in public and at the European conference, rests on Resolution No. 242, which was passed when the previous Government were in office and which we supported, and it rests upon the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Harrogate as long ago as the autumn of 1970. Her Majesty's Government's position has not changed in any way from the speech made at that time.
  Mr. Shore: Has the Prime Minister yet received any communication from the Dutch Government on the question of oil supplies and the sharing of them? If he has not, will he indicate what attitude he would take if he were asked to help?
  The Prime Minister: We have had no formal communications. It is, therefore, a hypothetical question. When the Prime Minister of the Netherlands

  661
  came to see me early last Sunday morning, naturally we discussed the whole Middle East situation and its effect on Europe. I think I am free to say, although it was a confidential discussion, that what he emphasised particularly was the nature of the world problem concerning oil supplies in the future.

  FEEDING STUFF PRICES
  Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 31st October 1973 to the Country Landowners Association on feeding stuff prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Douglas: Does the Prime Minister accept that the speech indicated a rather complacent attitude towards the plight of milk producers? Does he really believe that it is satisfactory to await the annual price review before doing something to halt the decline in the number of our milk producers and to lessen the effect of the reduction in milk producers on the processing industry?
  The Prime Minister: We have recognised right from the beginning that there is a very real problem here. At first it was thought that there was also a problem with pig producers over feedstuff prices, but in the last few weeks or so that has greatly eased. There is no complacency about this. I have seen Sir Henry Plumb on two occasions and the representatives of the National Farmers' Union to go over this matter with them. What we have said is that agriculture as a whole has had good returns, but the milk producers have also had reasonable returns. They have now been hit by this particular problem of feedstuff prices. But the answer is to await the price review. They know that in the longer term, following the coming price review, we shall be moving up to Community prices, from which the milk producers will benefit.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of compound animal feedstuffs has nearly doubled in the last three years? What
  662
  effect will that have on meat and milk production and on the retail price of those commodities? Do the Government propose to allow increases in the price of milk, or are they simply banking on the hope that next year the cost of feedstuffs will fall?
  The Prime Minister: It is quite right for the right hon. Gentleman to ask that the Government should not be complacent. At the same time I can ask the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, not to exaggerate. I am informed that animal feed prices are 50 per cent. higher than they were at this time last year. What milk producers can look forward to is consideration of that fact in the price review.
  Mr. Farr: In view of the difficult position in which some milk producers will find themselves, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is a probability that the price review negotiations this coming year will start earlier than usual?
  The Prime Minister: That is a possibility which is now being examined by my right hon. Friend. At one time, the proposition put to me in my meetings as well as to my right hon. Friend, was that there should be an additional price review of this particular commodity. Now, however, the proposal is—and, as I have said, it is being carefully examined—whether it would be possible to bring forward the date of the price review, but there are certain complications about it.
  Mr. Sillars: Is not the real reason why the Prime Minister refuses an interim price review that the Government no longer have the powers to institute such a review, having given away the powers in the European Communities Act?
  The Prime Minister: No, that is not the reason why we decided not to take special action at this time concerning milk producers. Right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition have emphasised only too often in past weeks that the returns to agriculture as a whole have been extremely good.
  Mr. Evelyn King: I understand the difficulties, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when he suggests that milk farmers ought to be patient—and indeed they ought—that milk farmers, unlike

  663
  many others, are in many instances, certainly in Dorset, very small farmers who have insufficient reserves with which it is possible to wait?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we recognise that. But we also recognise that milk farmers have shared in the general increase in agricultural incomes over the last three years, up to this particular point of some six weeks or two months ago, when feed prices began to rise very rapidly.
  Mr. Callaghan: Have not we reached a very remarkable stage in the management of our economic affairs when the Prime Minister advances as a reason for not giving compensation to milk producers the fact that feedstuff prices have increased by only 50 per cent. in 12 months?
  The Prime Minister: This increase, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the result of world shortages of feedstuffs. [Interruption.] However much the right hon. Gentleman's friends may try to laugh it away, it is impossible for them to do so. What the Government are saying is that, as agricultural returns have been reasonable, the proper arrangement is to await the next price review. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to give his support to measures for dealing with inflation, as he should have done when he was Chancellor, he should support this attitude.

  NATO
  Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech which he made at the El Alamein Reunion dinner on 26th October on the subject of NATO.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 29th October, Sir.
  Sir Gilbert Longden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important proposals made by the German Chancellor at Strasbourg on Tuesday—I am glad to hear that the German Chancellor discussed them first with my right hon. Friend—would do much to strengthen the European end of NATO? Is not the new French attitude towards European unity
  664
  much to be welcomed? Would it not be nice if Her Majesty's Opposition were to follow the French lead?
  The Prime Minister: I should be gratified if the Opposition were to follow either the French or German lead, or the lead of any other Socialist Party in the Community. At the summit Chancellor Brandt will no doubt put forward again the specific proposals which he made at Strasbourg which I have already said are of great importance. Concerning the French position on European unity, I agree with my hon. Friend about the progress which has been made; but he linked that with defence in NATO, and I expressed my view to the House on Tuesday that we would all naturally wish that the French Government would find themselves able to play a larger part in the Alliance, perhaps through the Euro-Group.
  Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask what recent representations European members of NATO have received from the United States about the future of NATO, in view of the sharp disagreements about the Middle East?
  The Prime Minister: As far as I know, the Euro-Group as such has received no representation from the United States administration about events in the Middle East. These are matters which may be discussed at the next meeting of Defence Ministers of the Alliance, which is, after all, due to take place in the comparatively near future.
  Mr. Marten: As Chancellor Brandt's speech referred to direct elections to the European Parliament, and as that speech was discussed with the Prime Minister, may we have a firm assurance from the Prime Minister that he does not agree with the German Chancellor on that point about direct elections at this stage?
  The Prime Minister: When I saw Chancellor Brandt at No. 10 Downing Street he told me about his speech, but he did so out of courtesy. He did not discuss with me the proposition as to whether or not it should be made. That is quite appropriate and it is exactly the same position as I would take. On the question of direct elections, provision is made for that in the Treaty of Rome.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister what requests lie has received to meet the Leader of the GLC.
  The Prime Minister: I have received two requests to receive deputations organised by the Greater London Council. I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction to deal with the first, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister for Transport Industries to deal with the second.
  Mr. Cox: In view of the collapse of booming Britain this week, is the Prime Minister aware of the urgency of such a meeting because of the effects that the financial restrictions will have on local authorities? When will that meeting take place? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if the meeting is to be of benefit to all the people of London he should assure the House that he will attend it and be prepared to listen and be helpful with suggestions, and to refrain from the deplorable bully-boy tactics that he employed in the House last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is talking?"]—against the leader of the Greater London Council, which were an utter disgrace?
  The Prime Minister: Last year, when the leaders of six of our great cities said that they wished to see me, on two occasions, with their principal advisers, I immediately acceded to their request. It was right to do so. We discussed the whole question of local government finance. As a result, certain arrangements were made. On the occasion on which I was asked to receive a deputation, it was not a deputation of this kind. If the Leader of the GLC wished to put forward a proposal for a similar deputation to that which I received from the great cities, in which he and his adviser wished to discuss seriously these matters with me, I should give it consideration.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When my right hon. Friend arranges for the Leader of the GLC to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, can he say that if the GLC and the London boroughs would get on with the job many people could be housed in dockland very swiftly?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. That is a most important proposal.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why he is so touchy about meeting the leader of the GLC? When he found that his progress from here to Downing Street was held up, he was not above contacting Desmond Plummer by means of an expensive telephone call to Tokyo. It seems a very short space to travel to exchange courtesies by the heads of two administrations.
  The Prime Minister: The purpose of the telephone call to Tokyo was not to exchange courtesies. Nor do I think that that was the purpose of the proposition put to me by the Leader of the GLC. I have just said that if the Leader of the GLC wishes to come to see me with his chief advisers to discuss the serious problems affecting London I will immediately give it consideration.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last time the Leader of the GLC announced to the Press that he came to lobby Members of Parliament he did not have the courtesy to inform any hon. Member on this side who represents a London constituency or to inform most Opposition Members who represent London constituencies?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps it was a rather impetuous decision.
  Mr. Pavitt: In his relations with the Leader of the GLC, will the Prime Minister give immediate and urgent attention to the fact that in the GLC area tomorrow many schools will need to close because they are heated only by electricity? Will he therefore take immediate action to ensure that in this field at any rate the emergency will not apply?
  The Prime Minister: This is a very important point. Obviously the House will have an opportunity of debating these matters in the debate which is to follow.

IMPERIAL METAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, BIRMINGHAM (EXPLOSION)
Mr. Sydney Chapman(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the explosion in the

667
sporting cartridge packing section at the Imperial Metal Industries plant at Witton, Birmingham, yesterday when a number of people were killed and injured.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): At about 11.30 a.m. yesterday an explosion occurred during a filling operation in the shot-gun cartridge filling area at the factory of Imperial Metal Industries Ltd., Witton, Birmingham. I greatly regret that six people—four women and two men—were killed, one other person was seriously injured, and 14 people suffered minor injuries.
Since this factory is licensed under the Explosives Act 1875, an inspector and an assistant inspector of explosives went at once to the scene of the accident to make urgent inquiries into its cause. They will report to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. I should like to express the Government's sympathy with the relatives of those who have died and with those who have been injured.
Mr. Chapman: May I and my constituents be associated with the expression of the Government's sympathy, felt more keenly by myself because a number of those injured were literally my next-street neghbours?
May I ask my hon. Friend to express the gratitude of those around at the prompt arrival of the emergency services and particularly of the representative from the explosives section of the Home Office, who, I believe, arrived at the scene of the accident within two hours?
Will my hon. Friend confirm that at present the cause of this tragedy is a complete mystery, that both the Home Office and IMI thought that the risk was one of fire rather than explosion? In view of the inevitable speculation that this is causing, may I have my hon. Friend's confirmation that the inquiry, already begun, will be thorough but swift and that a public statement will be made as soon as possible?
Mr. Lane: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the emergency services, because obviously this was a very severe explosion indeed and, alas, the worst accident in an explosives factory for a number of years. My hon.
668
Friend is right in saying that the cause is so far a complete mystery, and I do not want to speculate about it. My hon. Friend is right also that the material being used carried a risk of fire rather than of explosion. The inquiry will certainly be very thorough and as swift as possible, and its findings will be published.
Mr. Julius Silverman: As the scene of this accident is just over the border of my constituency, and as many of my constituents work there, may I add my sympathy to that already expressed by the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) to the relatives of those who have been killed and to those who have been injured?
I support the point made by the hon. Member for Handsworth that, in view of the speculation, which is already rife in the area, about causes of the explosion, the inquiry should be as expeditious as possible and at the same time exhaustive and should uncover the cause of the explosion, both to safeguard the lives of people in the area and people who work in similar areas and also to still speculation which is inevitable after such a mysterious explosion.
Mr. Lane: We shall certainly carry out the inquiry as quickly as we can, consistent with thoroughness. We have been in touch with the inspector on the spot this morning. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Mr. Kinsey: I join in the expressions of sympathy with the relatives of those killed and with those who were injured. Two of those killed—Jean Wardell and Patricia Harris—were constituents of mine.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the IMI factory has a good safety record. When he allows the investigation to go forward, I am sure that it will be very careful and thorough. I ask him not only to look into the cause of the accident but also to ensure that those affected—the relatives and the injured—have every help from whatever source they need it.
Mr. Lane: As far as I can undertake that, certainly. I am glad that my hon. Friend has pointed out that this factory has a very good accident record up to now. The last recorded injury was more than 30 years ago.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Opposition wish to express their very deep sympathy with the victims.
As the process involved is subject to Home Office clearance, will the Under-Secretary consider for the present not giving clearance until the results of the inquiry are known, assuming that the inquiry will be as rapid as possible?
Mr. Lane: Yes. The licence for this process was issued in 1959 and the process had been inspected as recently as September of this year, only two months ago. If there is any cause for anxiety, of course we will hold up issuing any further licences if that seems prudent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19th NOVEMBER—Debate on an Opposition motion of censure relating to the economy.
TUESDAY 20th NOVEMBER—Supply (1st Allotted Day): Until Seven o'clock debate on an Opposition Motion on public services in Greater London, and afterwards, on an Opposition Motion on museum charges.
Motions on Statutory Instruments, Business of Supply and Procedure.
WEDNESDAY 21st NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill.
Motion on the Iron and Steel Act 1969 (Continuance of Provisions) Order.
THURSDAY 22nd NOVEMBER—Debate on Northern Ireland, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23rd NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 26th NOVEMBER—Debate on European Economic Community affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Wilson: First, will the right hon. Gentleman promise an early debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on European Community secondary legislation?
Secondly, can we have a statement on one of the great mysteries of modern statistics—the £75 million shortage which was omitted when we were told that the trade gap was only £298 million? Can we have a statement on how this happened and whether, as is usually the case, these figures will now be carried forward to the following month?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman announce the date of the autumn Budget or alternatively, in order to calm down speculation at home and abroad, will he state categorically that there is not going to be an autumn Budget? Will he give an assurance that if there is one the Government will break with their recent practice and consider making it in the House and not outside?
Mr. Prior: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman's latter two points will be in order for the debate on Monday. There is certainly no question of an autumn Budget. On the other point which the right hon. Gentleman made, relating to a debate on the Select Committee's report about the way in which we should conduct our affairs connected with the European Community, I agree that the House will wish for an early debate on this matter. I cannot promise it for next week's business announcement, but it will certainly be soon after.
Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may we take it that the Government have now ruled out an autumn Budget?
Mr. Prior: The Government have absolutely no intention of introducing an autumn Budget.
Sir Bernard Braine: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the continued delay in setting up a Select Committee on overseas development? Is he aware that present information indicates that every member of the former Select Committee is willing to serve? Can he explain the delay and say when it will be set up?
Mr. Prior: I know that there has been some delay, which I think has been due

671
to getting the names organised. I understand that that matter has now been concluded and that an appropriate motion can be put on the Order Paper tonight.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he intends very shortly to announce the setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, with particular reference to energy problems in Scotland? Can he also tell us whether he will try to find time for the report and the Government's comments on the previous Select Committee's report on land use in Scotland?
Mr. Prior: On the question of a Scottish Select Committee, I gave an undertaking last Session that one would be set up this Session. I think it is a matter for discussion between the usual channels in the House as to the names and so on. The actual topic for discussion by the Select Committee must be a matter for it, and not for me. As regards the debate on the Select Committee's report on land use, this must be considered along with the other claims for debates in Select Committee time.
Mr. Biffen: Since my right hon. Friend has so authoritatively disposed of the prospect of an autumn Budget, can he say when we might expect the White Paper on public expenditure?
Mr. Prior: The White Paper on expenditure is due out next month. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date for it at the moment. It may be a week or so later than usual, but it will certainly come next month.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Leader of the House care to comment upon my right hon. Friend's question about the lightness by £75 million of the balance of payments deficit this month? Is it the intention of the Government to carry this £ 75 million forward to next month's deficit?
Mr. Prior: Perhaps I could help the House in this matter. I understand that the computer which records the imports at Heathrow broke down—it may even have been a strike—so that there will, of course, be some imports statistics to be carried forward. Those statistics will be carried forward in the normal and ordinary way.
Mr. Jennings: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement on the future of the Select Committee on Public Petitions?
Mr. Prior: I have had correspondence with my hon. Friend on this subject. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I will contact him as soon as possible.
Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Leader of the House remember that there was such a flood of legislation last Session that it was impossible to debate many important reports, and will he, in the interests of the House, do better this Session?
Mr. Prior: I do not think we have made a bad start, and we did not do so badly last Session.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend say whether early time will be made available to debate the report of the Nugent Committee on defence lands?
Mr. Prior: I have always thought it better for the Government's decisions to be announced on this matter before we have a debate. But I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago gave a clearer answer to my question about the £75 million than he did the first time round, and, indeed, gave his explanation, am I to take it that what he said confirms that it will not be just a corrected figure for October which will be put out, but that, following all previous practice when there has been under-recording or a delay through strikes, through shipping or dock troubles, that figure will be carried forward to the next month when the imports are recorded?
Mr. Prior: I think it would be better if that part of the problem were dealt with on Monday, and I will see that it is dealt with on Monday. I should also like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that no figure can be known, because the figures have not been collected.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my right hon. Friend now able to say when he will find time for a debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration?
Mr. Prior: It is usual on these occasions to await the Government's reply before having a debate. One report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, dealing with police-immigrant relations, and a reply by the Government are already in front of the House. I should like to consider whether we should have a debate on the latter report, taking into consideration the other report which has been published by the Select Committee, perhaps in advance of the Government's reply.
Mr. English: Now that we are in a new phase of the prices and incomes policy, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will make a statement on the ways in which inflation has affected this House, which include not only the allowances for Members and their secretaries but also the wages of its lowest-paid staff, such as catering staff and messengers?
Mr. Prior: Some of these matters are, of course, relevant to the Services Committee and the sub-committee of the Services Committee, which have been looking at this point.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that computers keep making mistakes, would it not be a good idea to analyse whether the mistakes arise because of the way computers are made or because of the people who use them? I have just learned about a young soldier who returned from Northern Ireland and has been charged £84 by a computer, which is supposed to have been overpaid into his account. He is now expected to repay it when he does not have any money left to live on. That is the fault of the computer.
Mr. Prior: I ought to correct something that I said earlier. I do not think it was a question of the computer breaking down; I believe the trouble was that the computer operators went on strike or on a "go-slow". So all I can say to my hon. Friend is that, if she cares to send the details of this case to me or direct to my right hon. Friend, we will see that it is investigated.
Mr. Loughlin: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the motion on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife,
674
West (Mr. William Hamilton), others of my hon. Friends and myself?
[That this House deplores the pay and conditions as applied to workers in the Houses of Parliament; is appalled by the advertisement which appeared in a London evening newspaper recently advertising for waitresses at £16·30 a week, £9·30 a week for evening cafeteria general assistants working from 6 p.m. to midnight, commis waitresses at £12·50, kitchen porters at £17 and £15 for chefs de partie (split shifts); and instructs the Services Committee to set a good example by giving such employees an immediate and substantial increase on their slave rates of pay, even if this means further increases in prices within the House.]
This was put down last Session and has now been retabled. It deals with the scandalous sweat shop wages which we are paying to members of the staff employed by the House of Commons. Also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position has now arisen where, in certain instances, we are having to employ sub-standard persons to carry out the jobs? Is it not about time that we in this House put our own house in order and found time to debate the whole position of the employees of this House?
Mr. Prior: I must say that I do not think that the words used by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) are very suitable for this occasion. These matters are firstly for negotiation between the trade union concerned and the management of the Refreshment Department and subsequently for consideration by the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. I have already said that the Catering Sub-Committee resolved last Session that urgent consideration should be given to the wages paid to the staff of the Refreshment Department, and that consideration is going on.
Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—if it is a point of order. Apparently I used the word "persons". I meant to say "employing persons at substandard wages."
Mr. Costain: In view of the public interest in the Russell Report on Adult Education, will my right hon. Friend find

675
time for a debate on this important issue before Christmas?
Mr. Prior: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the opportunities in the weeks before Christmas for many more general debates than those that I have just announced are very limited.
Mr. Skinner: Now that the Government have got two separate sets of inquiries going on into the London and Counties Securities Ltd. group, does the Leader of the House think that it would be convenient to have a debate on the matter, especially in view of the fact that within the space of three months one of the auditors of a leading subsidiary has resigned, that there is now a question of a Government inquiry into the whole affair, and that there is now the added problem of asset-stripping in which London and Counties Securities Ltd. is attempting to take over the Inveresk Paper group? Bearing in mind that the Leader of the Liberal Party is still going round the South Coast opening London and Counties Securities banks in supermarkets and so on, is it not time that the whole affair was debated in the House so that we might get rid of the ugly face of Liberalism?
Mr. Prior: Not next week, Sir.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 24?
[That this House calls upon the British Airports Authority and British Airways to retain the check-in system at the Cromwell Road Terminal at least until the rail link to Heathrow is open for passenger use.]
Will he try to find time for a debate on it next week or, failing that, very soon, because facilities have already been partly withdrawn at West London Air Terminal and they will all be withdrawn by Christmas, causing great hardship to a very large number of people?
Mr. Prior: I understand that the withdrawal of check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal is currently under discussion between the British Airways Board and the Airline Users' Committee of the Aviation Authority, which has statutory responsibility for furthering the interests of air transport. I think that it would be best to await the
676
outcome of those discussions before considering the matter further.
Mr. Robert Hughes: When the Leader of the House considers the possibility of a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in relation to other claims, will be remember that we should have had a debate on this important document last Session and that the reason why we were unable to do so was that the Scottish Office was so appallingly slow in preparing the Government's answer?
Mr. Prior: Without accepting the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I remind him that there is only a limited time to debate Select Committee reports, and I have already had a request today for another important debate.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: During the passage through the House of the Industry Bill 15 months ago, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was then responsible for the matter, gave the House the most express assurances about the provision which would be made for debating the annual report of the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development. We have had this report for three months, and many of us would like to debate not only what is being done but the appropriateness of some of my right hon. Friend's activities at a time when it is necessary to restrain public expenditure. Is there any prospect of an early debate on this important report?
Mr. Prior: I do not think so. Matters relevant to this sort of subject would have been in order during the debate on the Queen's Speech, and there will be other occasions on which they will be relevant. I cannot at the moment promise time for a debate on this specific report.
Dr. David Owen: Does the Leader of the House consider that he is responsible for the conduct of Ministers who make statements outside this House and for correcting them if they are shown to be wrong? If so, will he study the statements relating to the October trade figures, which are most unsatisfactory? I have in mind especially the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose statement about imports of precious stones was positively misleading. Is not it time that the record

677
was put straight and that the Secretary of State took the earliest opportunity to explain to the House the real deficit on the balance of payments and the real implications of it and discontinued his practice of attempting to escape his responsibility in misleading statements outside this House?
Mr. Prior: These matters will be relevant on Monday.
Mr. Shore: Although we welcome every opportunity to discuss European Community affairs, can the Leader of the House say, with regard to the debate a week on Monday, whether he intends to give it any specific focus on, for example, the regional policies of the EEC or the reform of the common agricultural policy? If so, will he arrange matters with his colleagues so that we get a firm statement of Government policy arising out of recent discussions in the EEC before the debate takes place?
Mr. Prior: I should like to consider the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. It was the Government's intention that my right hon. Friend who is responsible for regional development should take part in the debate and that the debate should largely focus on the regional policies of the EEC. I thought that it might be for the convenience of hon. Members to raise wider issues than that and that the debate would best take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I shall consider further what the right hon. Gentleman has said to see whether some statement can be made in advance in order to give more focus to the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on very soon. But I shall call the three hon. Members who have been rising throughout Business Questions. Mr. David Clark.
Mr. David Clark: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early Day Motion No. 11 dealing with successor parish councils?
[That the Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1110), dated 22nd June 1973, a copy of
678
which was laid before this House on 29th June, in the last session of Parliament, be withdrawn.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have an opportunity to debate this topic before too long?
Mr. Prior: I accept that we must have a debate on this matter. I think I am right in saying that more successor parish councils will be reported on in the coming few days. It might be as well to debate them all in 10 days' or a fortnight's time.
Mr. Marks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early Day Motion No. 47 and declare an interest as a former teacher in doing so? It calls for the Government to reduce the rate of contributions by teachers to their superannuation fund from 6¾ per cent. to 6 per cent.
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to reduce the contribution by the teachers to their superannuation scheme from 6¾. per cent. to 6 per cent. in line with most other public service schemes; and to allow at least half of their war service to be credited to their pension contributions as in the case of the Civil Service.]
It has been signed by more than 130 Opposition hon. Members and it is supported by a similar motion in the names of a number of Government supporters. This matter is causing great resentment among teachers. Are we likely to have an opportunity to debate it at an early date?
Mr. Prior: These issues were dealt with in the House by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on Monday and Tuesday. I cannot add further to what he said then.
Mr. William Hamilton: Reverting to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) about the wages and conditions of staff in this House, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that hon. Members can at least raise Questions on this matter on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that when we take Questions into the Table Office we are

679
met with a quotation from a blocking answer given by the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor which is grossly unsatisfactory? It is very important that we should give the full light of publicity to the quite scandalous conditions which exist among our employees.
Mr. Prior: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his question, nor do I think it would be wise for the House to conduct this kind of wage bargaining process about its own employees on the Floor of the House. I do not think that is what Parliament is about.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  STATE OF EMERGENCY
  Message from Her Majesty [13th November] considered.
  Mr. Speaker: The Message from Her Majesty is as follows:
  The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists; and the present industrial dispute affecting persons employed in the coal mines and the electricity supply industry having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:
  Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 13th day of November 1973, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  4.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Can): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty deems it proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and dated 13th November 1973, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following motion:
  That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 by Order dated 13th November 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of section 2(4) of the said Act.
  Mr. Carr: I will first deal with the regulations, then mention the few changes that have been made since the House last approved a set of emergency regulations and, briefly, the two orders that came into effect today and then turn to the case for introducing these regulations at this time.
  It has been the practice of successive Governments—I am sure that it is a wise

  681
  one—to make a complete set of emergency regulations at the outset. No Government can forecast precisely the course of any emergency, and this emergency is no exception.
  The first substantive regulations are Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which are concerned with the regulation of ports. It is not expected that the need for them will arise in the immediately foreseeable future.
  Regulations 6 to 15 give power to relax restrictions governing the use of road vehicles, and here again the need to make use of any of these regulations is also unlikely in the immediate future.
  Regulations 16 to 20 are concerned with various public services and public utilities. Regulations 17 and 18 in particular are concerned with the supply of electricity and gas respectively. It may be necessary to relieve some electricity boards of their statutory or contractual obligations to supply electricity or to maintain a supply of a certain standard. I draw the attention of the House to certain additional powers which my right hon. Friend will have to give directions to various river and water authorities and sewerage authorities under regulations 19 and 20.
  The 1972 regulations—the last ones we had—allowed the various water undertakers and water boards and sewerage authorities, acting under any general or special authority granted by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, to disregard certain restrictions imposed with respect to the taking of water or the discharge of the contents of sewers. The additional powers proposed are designed to facilitate the task of water and sewerage authorities in doing what is necessary or expedient to maintain supplies of water or to secure the most effective draining of the sewers under such directions as the Secretary of State may wish to give. In both cases there are reserve powers for the Secretary of State to take appropriate steps if his directions are not complied with.
  It is not expected that immediate use will have to be made of these new powers, although, if we remember the lessons of some earlier disputes, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that if the electricity supply situation deteriorates drastically this could interfere with the provision of water supplies and the operation of sewage disposal plants. I hope that
  682
  the House will agree that this is a prudent and useful additional to the corpus of emergency powers.
  Regulations 21 to 29 deal with consumption and supply. My right hon. Friend has already made orders under regulation 21 restricting the consumption of electricity for certain purposes in connection with space heating and display and advertising lighting.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Has there been consultation with the Electricity Council on regulation 21? I have it on good authority that there was no consultation whatever and that the Electricity Council has protested strongly.
  Mr. Carr: I am sure that there has been consultation. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will give the House details of it when he winds up. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been consultation.
  An additional power is included under Regulation 21 which enables the Secretary of State by order to regulate or prohibit the supply or abstraction and consumption of water in terms similar to the existing powers relating to fuel refinery products, electricity and gas. Again, it is not expected that early use will need to be made of this power to regulate the supply or consumption of water, but I thought it proper to draw the House's attention both to the existence of the main power and the addition to which I have referred.
  Regulation 22 gives the Government power to regulate solid or liquid fuel or refinery products. This may be particularly relevant at a time when a serious disruption of coal supplies coincides with a period of grave uncertainty about oil supplies. It has always been customary to include this provision in emergency regulations, and Regulation 22 is in the same form as in the last set of regulations we had before us.
  The remaining regulations—30 to 40—are in the normal standard form. Perhaps I should draw to the attention of the House once again the proviso to Regulation 38(1) whereby no person shall be guilty of an offence against the emergency regulations—and that includes breaches of orders made under the regulations—by reason of his taking part in or peacefully persuading others to take part in a strike. These regulations, therefore, are

  683
  not directed against the lawful activities of trade unions. Their sole purpose is to grant the Government the necessary powers to safeguard the essentials of life. That again is normal, but I thought it was worth underlining this fact so that there may be no misunderstanding, perhaps not so much inside the House as outside it.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the operations centre in Scotland Yard, which has been set up in an attempt to minimise the effects of picketing, is to have the teeth and power to carry out the job which he envisages it will do it will require to act under the regulation to which he has referred?
  Mr. Carr: Certainly no regulation is required for that. The Police Act 1964 provides powers for co-operation between police forces. The centre to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not an operations centre but an information centre, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is rather different. The object of this regulation is not in any way to help the police to prevent peaceful, lawful picketing, but simply to help the police generally throughout the country to make sure that the law of peaceful picketing is adhered to and is not broken. If no one breaks the law about peaceful picketing I shall be delighted because that will mean that the centre will have nothing to do.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: In view of what the Home Secretary has just said, does he consider on reflection that it was wise to refer to the setting up of this information centre in Scotland Yard when he appeared to give a stern warning to those concerned with picketing duties when he spoke recently on television?
  Mr. Carr: I do not think so. This is something I have said on a number of occasions, as I told the House on Tuesday. There is nothing new in it. It is important that the people of this country should be reminded of the law and who has the duty to enforce it. That was all I did. It is a perfectly proper thing to do, and it is better to do that occasionally than to speak too late.
  I now turn to the basic case for introducing these regulations at this time. The basic, overriding reason is that the present
  684
  Government—indeed any Government, as I hope Labour Members will accept—have a primary duty to safeguard the ordinary life of the community both at work and at home and the services which it needs. In modern society few things can disrupt life more than a failure of fuel supplies.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Home Secretary mentions life at work and at home. What about the schools? Are the children in my constituency, because of his regulations, to be expected to go to cold schools?
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) had better wait for the debate to develop that point in his own contribution. I hope that nobody will have to go to a cold school or cold office, but we may all have to go to somewhat less warm ones than we would otherwise do. This is a matter to which we shall give very careful consideration, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will deal with it when he comes to reply to the debate.
  Few things can disrupt the lift of the community more than a failure of fuel supplies. It is no good waiting until that disruption has become serious. If industrial activity and, therefore, the employment of the vast majority of our people is to be sustained, if essential services such as hospitals are to be guaranteed, if ordinary life at home is to be preserved at a decent tolerable level, it is only prudent to take action to conserve fuel and energy resources as soon as a serious threat to them materialises. There can do no doubt that such a serious threat exists today.
  Before the miners' overtime ban began on Monday, we already had two conditions which are central to the situation. First, we had the condition of grave uncertainty about our oil supplies arising from the war and the continuing crisis in the Middle East. Secondly, we had already before Monday the ban on out-of-hours working by the electrical power engineers. In consequence of this dispute in which the electrical power engineers are involved, some members of the public have already suffered an abrupt interruption of supplies. It is true that we have not suffered organised rota cuts which

  685
  electricity boards have been able to operate in previous emergencies, but an immediate blackout without warning and some doubt whether it might be possible for supplies to be resumed have been a reality. In these circumstances it is not always possible to guarantee supplies to priority consumers or to maintain supplies to hospitals, operating theatres and those on kidney machines and so on.
  Before the miners' ban on Monday we already had these two circumstances: the grave uncertainty of oil supplies and the ban on out-of-hours working by the electrical power engineers. Then superimposed on those two circumstances came the miners' overtime ban. This has brought about a crucial situation, particularly when the nature and the intended effect of this overtime ban is taken into account.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the Home Secretary not agree that this all comes down to the Government's rigidity in relation to phase 3? There is an alternative—and that is to reach a settlement for these two groups of workers. There was a time when Conservative Members used to sneer at my right hon. Friend when as Prime Minister he used to have his midnight meetings with various trade union leaders. But we never had the sort of industrial chaos which we now find in this country after three years of Tory Government.
  Mr. Carr: We had sufficient chaos under the Labour Government for them to introduce "In Place of Strife". The then Prime Minister and his Ministers said that that document was essential to the life of the community.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, the code in phase 3 has been passed by this House. [Interruption.] Yes, it has been passed by the House, and in a democratic society it demands the respect of all our people. I shall be interested to hear whether Labour Members deny that fact. If they do, they should say so clearly.
  It should also be pointed out that the phase 3 arrangements provide flexibility to give above-average increases to those—such as the miners and many people engaged in the public services and those undertaking other types of work—who, because of unsocial hours and so forth,
  686
  work in difficult conditions. It provides an offer to the miners which by any standards of the past is extremely generous. It is also fair to point out that the present miners' agreement, by their consent, runs until next March. Therefore, they are imposing this overtime ban four months at least before their present agreement runs out and needs to be replaced by a new one. It would not be unreasonable for people of this country to say "Before you impose this sort of hardship upon us, you ought to try to negotiate a bit further to reach a solution without this sort of national crisis being created." If the Opposition are prepared to take that view, then the whole country will welcome it; but if they are not, then they can account to the country for their actions. I have little doubt how the country will regard them.
  Mr. Alec Jones: The Home Secretary seems to suggest that if the mineworkers are prepared to negotiate further at this stage all will be well. Is he saying that the Government are prepared to allow real negotiations with the miners at the present juncture?
  Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed, and if the hon. Gentleman is honest he must admit that the phase 3 code allows considerable latitude for negotiation. It does not impose a standard set amount on all workers in all industries and in all trades and occupations regardless. In the standstill period that was inevitable. Phase 2 allowed a little more latitude and flexibility. Phase 3 would allow much more latitude and flexibility to meet individual conditions, otherwise it would not have been possible for the sort of offers which we now see to be made within phase 3. I refer to the miners and firemen, to take two examples. It was deliberately chosen to allow offers considerably above the average to be negotiated in those occupations which, because of such matters as unsocial hours, it would be generally thought deserved above-average increases. That is the position.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: If it is the case that the pay code allows much more flexibility, how is it that the power engineers, who negotiated their out-of-hours agreement more than a year ago, still do not have an effective settlement?
  Mr. Carr: The meetings are still going on. It may be that we shall find a solution. I hope that we do.
  To return to the strict subject of the debate, from which I was diverted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I wish to emphasise that the overtime ban has been superimposed on the situation that I have described, and we have the ban in a form which, as the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers have made clear by their public statements, would quickly produce a severe drop in coal production.
  It is not some harmless overtime ban which will have only a marginal effect. It is an overtime ban which the miners' union leaders—to their credit, because there was nothing furtive in their approach—said openly and publicly would have, and was intended to have, a severe effect. Indeed, the National Coal Board has confirmed that the loss of output so far after the first three days is already 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of normal production; and that is the situation before the indirect effects of the overtime ban have been felt—for example, through failures and damage due to lack of maintenance. We must, therefore, expect a further progressive and rapid deterioration, as the miners' leaders well understand.
  Indeed, Mr. Gormley is reported in The Times of 9th November to have said on 8th November:
  "It is my estimate that if properly applied there will be few pits working after the first week. The crunch will come this weekend."
  That is Mr. Gormley's estimate of the effect of the overtime ban. If anyone tries to tell this House and this Government or the people of this country that when we have grave uncertainty about oil supplies, when we have minor dislocation already in the electricity supply industry and, on top of that, when we have the miners' overtime ban—which the union leader himself says will, if properly applied, mean that few pits will be working after the first week—that we should not have a state of emergency declared in that circumstance I hope that he will try to explain himself not only to this House but to the country as a whole.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The Minister is selective in what he believes from the leaders of the mineworkers. If he can believe them on one
  688
  count he ought to believe them on the other. Will he tell the House how much that figure of lost production, if it is correct, fell on the first day and how much on the two days after he declared his state of emergency and almost declared war on the miners?
  Mr. Carr: It is ridiculous to say that declaring a state of emergency is declaring war on the miners. It is a serious action, true, but its object is to protect the life and work of the overwhelming majority of people of this country. I remind the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that what I said was that the National Coal Board has confirmed that the loss of output so far is already between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. It has varied each day, but on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday the figure was over 20 per cent. and below 25 per cent. It has not been exactly the same each day, but even on the first day it was over 20 per cent. and has been over 20 per cent. on each succeeding day.
  We had to make our decision in the light of our knowledge on Tuesday that Day 1 had caused a 20 per cent. loss of production and that the miners' leaders were saying that in a week many pits would be closed without any extension of the overtime ban.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman painting a completely misleading picture to the House? Is it not the fact that because of the oil problem the emergency powers would have been necessary within a short time in any event? Is he not, therefore, using the miners' action as a political alibi in order to prejudice public opinion against them, and, that being so, does he not agree that it is reprehensibly dishonest of him to try to divert the attention of the House from the main dominant, central consideration—oil?
  Mr. Carr: I certainly do not accept that. I feel that the House should acquit me of that charge, because I very fairly said—if hon. Members look back, they will see that I said the same on Tuesday—that we had the double situation already existing of grave uncertainty about oil supplies and the trouble with electricity supply. I say quite firmly that, whatever the oil situation might or might not, or may or may not, mean on its own in the end, there is as yet nothing in the

  689
  oil situation which, on its own, would require the declaration of a state of emergency. That may not always remain so, because, as I have already stated, there is grave uncertainty. That is the situation which the House must take into account.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend saying that if the overtime ban were taken off tomorrow and under stage 3 a settlement could be arrived at this set of emergency operations would not be proceeded with?
  Mr. Carr: That is exactly what I am saying. It would never have been brought forward if that had not happened.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: But is not the case against the Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is I10 case".]—that there are 11 weeks' stocks in the country, which would allow us time to negotiate a settlement with the miners if that were allowed by the Government? Why, then, have the state of emergency now?
  Mr. Carr: Fair enough. Is that what the Opposition want to say to the country?—Use up your coal stocks, do it at a time when you have no assurance that you can keep up your oil stocks at their present level, and do nothing in the hope that—[Interruption.] Very well. Let them say that to the country. But it is not what this Government will ever say to the country.
  Although Britain has received valuable assurances from the Arab oil-producing countries, there is no doubt that the world oil supply situation as a whole is gravely uncertain, and thus, in the Government's view, there is no doubt that the threats to coal and electricity have so seriously reduced our ability to withstand the uncertainties of the oil supply situation that the basic commodity at risk is now energy as a whole. It is not a matter of one form of fuel alone.
  When one is threatened on the supply of energy as a whole, there is no doubt that the action which the Government have taken is right. With our pits already producing 20 to 25 per cont. each day less than normal, and with the apparent certainty, unless the union calls off its action, that next week matters will be much worse, it would be utter folly and
  690
  utter lack of responsibility to carry on without these emergency powers.
  Mr. Alex Eadie rose—
  Mr. Carr: No. I have been generous in giving way, and I must get on. I hope that I shall be allowed to make a little further progress.
  Mr. Eadie rose—
  Mr. Carr: No. The hon. Member will admit that I have been generous in giving way, and the result of giving way is that other hon. Members will not have opportunity to speak. I deliberately wanted to make a short speech in order to allow others a chance to contribute to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has already appealed for fuel economy in all sectors, and we have already reinforced that appeal by taking specific steps under the emergency regulations to reduce electricity demand. The ban on display and floodlighting and on space heating under the two orders which came into force today will, we estimate, save about 5 per cent. of our total electricity consumption, and this is a valuable contribution if we have a long haul ahead of us. Although we hope that we do not have a long haul ahead of us, it would be folly to plan on any other basis, and, of course, the need for further orders will be under daily review.
  Meanwhile, I reinforce the appeals already made by the Government to all consumers to do their utmost to economise in the use of electricity and all fuels in the knowledge that the need for more stringent measures may thus be avoided—and by "thus be avoided" I mean by voluntary co-operation in achieving maximum economy.
  As my hon. Friend has already announced, the public sector has been instructed to play its full part in this effort. The Civil Service Department yesterday issued a notice to all Government Departments and all public bodies drawing their attention to the need for economy in the use of fuel and electricity, and this will be rigorously brought about within all Departments and public bodies. The Government are in touch with the airlines about measures which they can take to pool flights and so save aviation spirit. An appeal is being made to the distribution trades to ask them to seek to

  691
  save fuel by reorganising delivery and other schedules. The Department of Trade and Industry has in action an emergency unit to provide advice to industry on fuel conservation, and widespread consultation with industry will take place.
  There is no doubt in my mind that, because of the situation arising out of industrial action being taken in the coal and electricity industries on top of the uncertainty about oil, we are right to have taken these powers, and right to have taken them now. If the Opposition persist in their charge that there was some sinister political motive for this action, or for its timing, that, I believe is more a commentary on their approach to these matters than on ours, and I am prepared to let the country judge which is the right course to take.
  We believe these powers to be necessary for the protection of the public. I hope that the Opposition will not divide the House against them. The regulations and the supporting measures which I have announced this afternoon will help us to economise on power while the disputes last.
  Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman challenges the Opposition on the basis of responsibility. Will he agree that he is the wrong person to be moving these regulations, because it was he himself who was involved in negotiation with the miners during the last strike, and it was he who accepted the report as the basis of the miners' settlement? Why is he not prepared to accept that tribunal—which the Government agreed should be set up—as the basis of a settlement now? Is it not irresponsible for him to ignore that settlement and not reach a settlement with the miners now?
  Mr. Carr: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "ignoring that settlement". I remember telling the House before that dispute started—I was shouted down by hon. Members opposite when I said it—that if the Opposition were saying that the miners were a special case, as indeed they were saying, then they and the trade union movement supported by them must accept that the very definition of a special case, that one did more for one lot of workers than for another, meant that others must be pre-
  692
  pared to hold back, and the trade union movement, on a voluntary basis, must find some way of ranking claims. Otherwise, a special case is a contradiction in terms.
  What happened was that the Wilberforce inquiry was held, its recommendations were accepted, and the miners were treated as a very special case indeed in the scale of the increase which they then had, but, unfortunately, within a few months the operation of the free-for-all of collective bargaining made nonsense of that special case, and the special case had become the standard norm. That is the main reason why, regretfully, we have had to go to a statutory policy—a most regrettable step. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) talks about the Wilberforce inquiry. Let him, with all his trade union colleagues, examine the why and the wherefore of what happened afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman accepted it."] I accepted Wilberforce. Wilberforce was accepted and implemented. Since then, unfortunately, because of what happened after Wilberforce, we have had to move to a statutory policy and a pay code in an entirely different situation.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Carr: I will not give way. I have given my reasons.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. It is evident that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Skinner: He might.
  Mr. Carr: I will not, because I want to end my speech rapidly, and so let other hon. Members make their speeches.
  Finally, I need hardly say that it is the profound wish of the Government, and of the public at large, that these disputes should be speedily and fairly settled, so that the Government can ask for the emergency powers to be revoked.
  I assure the House that the Government will make as much, but no more, use of these powers as is absolutely necessary to fulfil our primary duty to the people of the country as a whole, and that we shall bring the powers to an end as soon as we believe it is safe to do so.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Home Secretary rightly said that the declaration of a state of emergency is a serious matter. He knows, and the Government know, that this is the fifth state of emergency declared by this Government. They have declared more states of emergency than any other Government in recent years. The first was declared in July 1970, the second in December 1970, the third in February 1972, the fourth in August 1972, and now we have the fifth.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to two features of the last two states of emergency declared by the Government. The state of emergency in February 1972 arose over the miners' strike, when the miners had been on strike for more than three weeks, and at a time when the stocks of distributed coal were considerably lower than they are now. The contrast between that state of emergency—declared after several weeks of a full strike, and with lower coal stocks than we now have—and this state of emergency—after one day of an overtime ban, and with much higher coal stocks—is not lost on this side of the House.
  The Government also declared a state of emergency in August 1972, when there had been seven days of a complete dock strike, which had halted all movement of goods into and out of the country. Declarations of emergency after a three weeks' strike, a seven days' strike and now after one day of an overtime ban—are not the Government perhaps becoming a little profligate with states of emergency?
  A state of emergency is not declared without consequences on the people of the country, on overseas' attitudes, on the Stock Exchange, and on confidence in industrial investment. The two latter matters are, perhaps, of more concern to Conservative Members than to hon. Members on this side. It is not surprising that this state of emergency has been accompanied by signs of panic on the Stock Exchange and grave disquiet in industry, and overseas.
  A state of emergency is a declaration by a Government that they are gravely concerned about the country. Therefore, no Government should embark on a state of emergency without the fullest
  694
  possible reasons. The powers which a Government take in declaring a state of emergency are very wide and very severe. The Home Secretary mentioned some of them. They include the right to arrest without warrant, the right to requisition any item of transport, any chattel, or piece of land, and the right of a Government to bring in troops. These powers, sustained over any length of time, are incompatible with parliamentary democracy.
  Therefore, no Government should ask for such powers and certainly no Government should repeatedly ask for them, without being very clear that the reasons are overwhelming. Such action begins to shake people's faith in democracy.
  Mr. John Gorst: As the hon. Lady has made a comparison betwen the five declarations of a state of emergency under the present Government and the fewer such declarations—[HON. MEMBERS: "One."]—the one in six years under her Government, will she answer the following question? As they have all been due to industrial unrest, would it be fair to assume that a Government of her party would have capitulated to the demands on all those occasions?
  Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to allow me to continue my speech, he will find that I come to exactly that point in a few minutes. I believe that there would have been nothing like the amount of industrial disruption that we have seen if different policies had been followed.
  Obviously, it is a grave matter for a Government to introduce a state of emergency. It is also a grave matter for an Opposition to oppose it. We do not do so lightly. We do it because we believe that either there is not a state of emergency on the grounds the Government have declared, or, if there is one, it is on grounds which for some reason the Government are unwilling to admit. That is why on this occasion we cannot support its declaration.
  Before going into details. I should like to ask one or two questions about the existing regulations. The Home Secretary pointed out that one regulation has been made already with regard to the use of display lighting, floodlighting, and so on. Within the context of the present state of emergency, that is Just the sort

  695
  of thing a Government should do. Such lighting is what one might describe as a somewhat expendable use of electricity. It is relevant to say that when I passed through the West End this afternoon there was display lighting on inside shops, although it was full daylight, in large areas of Oxford Street. For that to happen after the making of the emergency orders, at a time when schools are told they may not heat by electricity, is to suggest that the Government have failed to consult or to publicise, or have simply got their order of priorities all wrong.
  Secondly, the Government's order that space heating of offices, shops and a whole range of other public accommodation is not allowed refers only to heating by electricity, yet the Home Secretary himself could not have made it clearer in today's debate that the crisis is one of all sources of fuel and not simply of electricity. However, we are not being asked to conserve oil in centrally-fired oil-heated establishments. We are not being asked to take steps to conserve coal. We are being asked to cut out heating in the one area of the provision by the State which is crucially important, because it is irrecoverable. I refer to the loss of schooling. Lost school time can never be made up to a child. Such heating should be the last thing and not the first that we seek to economise on.
  Mr. R. Carr: I should like to correct the hon. Lady on one point. It is true that we have made only two orders, but I made it absolutely clear, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has already done publicly, that we are appealing for economy in the use of all fuels, and not only electricity. We are doing something about it. The request to all Government Departments and public bodies affected all fuels.
  Mrs. Williams: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says today, but he did not say it on Tuesday, when he declared the state of emergency. What he has said shows up the whole contrast in a sense. There is an appeal to those using oil-fired heating but a directive to those using electric heating. We say, "Issue the directive not in terms of the sort of heating but in terms of the use made of it".
  696
  I turn to the reasons the Government gave for the present state of emergency. The Home Secretary said on Tuesday:
  "the present situations in the coal and electricity generating industries constitute a threat to the essentials of life of the community which is sufficiently serious to justify taking immediate emergency powers to maintain essential services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973;Vol. 864, c. 257.]
  The very next day The Times reported in its political column that
  "senior Ministers emphasize the precautionary nature of their decision rather than a crisis."
  I stress the words "precautionary nature". I believe that that report of what senior Ministers are saying is rather closer to the truth than the statement in the declaration of emergency.
  Let us take coal first. There is a ban on overtime in the coalmining industry. There will certainly be consequences on production, which I do not wish to underestimate, by next week. The National Coal Board has said publicly today that it cannot estimate the consequences for production until after the weekend. But the Government have said, and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has repeated, that there are 12 weeks' stocks. The Home Secretary says, "Are you asking us to disperse those stocks before taking action?" He and the Government cannot have it both ways. A year ago, much more correctly, they took steps to try to avoid a state of emergency until there really was one. On this occasion, with 12 weeks' stocks and the miners still negotiating with the National Coal Board, the Government have taken this action without even giving a few more days in which negotiations can take place. That is hardly helpful.
  The second ground the Government give for their emergency declaration relates to electricity generation, which the Home Secretary described today as a minor dislocation. There were no voltage reductions yesterday; the full supply has been maintained. The gap between the Central Electricity Generating Board's offer and the claim of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association is very narrow. It is a claim that, to the shame of everybody, not least the Government and the Pay Board, has been outstanding for no less than 12 months.

  697
  The Opposition believe that the true reason for the state of emergency is different, and that Ministers are gradually, reluctantly, admitting it. The Home Secretary, after questioning on Tuesday, but not before questioning, and not in his original declaration, admitted that the uncertainty of oil supplies owing to the crisis in the Middle East was an important factor in the state of emergency. Today he said that the coal and electricity difficulties coincide with a serious disruption of oil supplies. In other place the Lord Privy Sea said that the Government thought the state of emergency
  "the right action to take because of the coming together of three emergencies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th November 1973; vol. 346, c. 588.]
  Yet the Government mentioned only two in their state of emergency declaration. It is no way to unite the country in a difficult situation only to mention minor emergencies involving trade unions and not to mention the major emergency of oil supplies, which would have had the consequence of uniting the country in a determination on the matter.
  When I asked the Home Secretary on Tuesday whether he had in mind the restriction of oil supplies or the rationing of petrol supplies, he did not answer. Yet we know that the cut-back of Arab oil supplies has already been 30 per cent. to the world, and it is estimated by the oil companies to be 20 per cent. to this country. The Economist said last week:
  "Britain and France will face painful oil shortages within a few weeks even if the Arabs regard them as friendly."
  It is known that the Department of Trade and Industry has already made inquiries of industry about what steps it would take to deal with, first, a 10 per cent. cut and, secondly, a 20 per cent. cut in oil supplies, which might last for a considerable period.
  All over the world—in Japan, West Germany, the United States—other countries are taking steps to restrict, control or even ration petrol supplies. Therefore, it is astonishing that the Government should put before the House what I can only describe as a truly desperate and rather shoddy attempt to place the blame for the emergency upon certain trade unions, and should not make it
  698
  clear that an emergency faces not just Britain but the entire Western world, an emergency for which I do not blame the Government.
  Mr. Peter Rost: The hon. Lady has made an excellent case in referring to the oil emergency, in support of what the Government are proposing. Will she now come to the point and say what the country is waiting to hear—whether or not the Opposition support the action taken by the leaders of the mineworkers?
  Mrs. Williams: We do not support the state of emergency but we shall support it the moment the Government make clear how the state of emergency really arises. Let me turn to the point the hon. Member has raised. One of the difficulties in this House is that remarks one is about to make are always pre-empted by questions. I think the Home Secretary found the same thing. It means that a speaker has to jump about from one point to another while attempting to develop a line of argument. I am not trying to avoid the question and I shall answer it, but it will be in my own time and in my own place.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Lady has a great reputation for her honesty and her probity. I thought she said—I may have misunderstood her—that she will not say whether she supports this movement or not until she has heard from the Government why they are declaring the state of emergency. Surely my right hon. Friend has said precisely why it is being declared.
  Mr. William Hamilton: We want the real reason.
  Mrs. Williams: I am sorry, but I shall have to repeat what I said. If the Government are prepared to state, as they have not yet been prepared to, that the state of emergency is because of the oil supply situation, and if they are also prepared to admit, what they will soon be obliged to admit, about the introduction of oil rationing, we shall support the state of emergency. Frankly, we do not believe that the Government are being honest with the country.
  I turn to the point which I raised with the Home Secretary on Tuesday and

  699
  which relates to the question just raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). It relates directly to the reasons given by the Home Secretary for the state of emergency, namely the coal and electricity disputes. In the course of his remarks in Leicester on Monday night the right hon. Gentleman said he was determined to stop industrial violence and for this purpose he had asked for greater co-operation between police forces. He said he trusted that this greater co-operation would mean there would not be violence or intimidation of the kind which had existed in the past. Neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends condone industrial violence or industrial intimidation. However, we do not believe that the Home Secretary was for one moment wise to refer to industrial violence when none is being offered by either of the bodies involved in these disputes.
  The House will also recall that during the course of his statement on Tuesday the Home Secretary got into some difficulty about who was breaking the law. An overtime ban is not a breach of the law. Again, my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself do not condone any attempt to break a Government by industrial action, by employers' action or by financial action. We believe that in a democracy Governments should be made and boken in the ballot box and nowhere else. Frankly, if the Home Secretary is concerned to avoid industrial violence he would be much better off advising his chief constables to consult responsible local senior union leaders about what is and what is not permitted than talking about industrial violence.
  I refer back to what happened during the miners' strike in February 1972. At that time, as some of my hon. Friends will remember, a group of us went to see the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), to ask him to request chief constables to meet responsible leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers and to explain precisely what was and what was not allowed. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that this was not part of a Home Secretary's responsibility. Eventually he agreed it might be helpful. Those of my hon. Friends who accompanied me at that
  700
  meeting, several of whom are on the back benches today, will recall that where that happened—as it did, for example, in Lancashire—there was virtually no trouble during the strike. That is the way the problem should be approached—by honest co-operation and by sensible dialogue between sensible men rather than by the Government's talking about industrial violence in a way which is only likely to be provocative in the long run.
  I wish to turn to what I believe to be the crisis which lies even beyond the crisis about oil. This crisis, which we shall be debating on Monday, concerns the country's economy; the 13 per cent. Bank Rate, the 2 per cent. special deposits, the £350 million deficit in October, the £936 million deficit in the first nine months of the year. I accept that the crisis of Britain is indeed in part a crisis which affects far more countries than Britain. It consists of the oil crisis, the crisis about raw materials, the crisis about shortages of feed grains and the crisis about the shortage of newsprint. These go far beyond our shores. But the problems which the whole of the Western world now faces have been compounded in Britain by the Government's handling of the economy. The real crisis will create hardship and we do not believe that the Government are acting to alleviate that hardship or in a way that calls beyond those affected to the nation as a whole. We face a very grim situation.
  I do not believe that it will necessarily be grim for a long time. Towards the end of the decade we shall be perhaps better placed than most other countries in terms of fuel. I do not believe that in the four or five years of stringency that are bound to face us we should neglect another of our great assets—a law-abiding and patient people. We do not face a crisis merely of our oil supplies. We face a crisis about the trust that the people of this country are prepared to put in democracy itself. It is as serious as that.
  The Home Secretary says that the Opposition should call for respect for the law from our own people and that we must, in the national interest, respond. Surely, however, we are entitled to say to the Home Secretary that respect for Jaw, respect for stage 3 as passed by Parliament, cannot begin and end with our people. It is a respect for law which

  701
  must also be shown by those who have evaded stage 3 time and again by redefining jobs, by giving themselves exceptional salary increases and by evading the tax that the rest of us have to pay. There must be a respect for the law which does not begin or end with any particular category of citizen. I repeat that I believe that the crisis is more serious than one which should be met by party bickering. The Government must not only appeal, but direct, that the laws that they ask us to respect are respected by their own followers and their own supporters. It is only on the basis of a just taxation policy which gives to those who are now suffering hardships because of the reliefs which the Government so unwisely gave to the rich, that the country can face the crisis which is in front of it.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: First, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for being unable to be in the Chamber throughout his speech. I was unexpectedly called out for a few moments. I hope that he will acquit me of any discourtesy.
  The taking of emergency powers is not something that is entered upon lightly or wantonly by any administration. I have no reason to suppose that it was the wish of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that they should present to the House the measures which we are now debating and which I hope will be confirmed in the Lobby. None the less, there will be appreciation of many of the arguments which the hon. Member for Hitch in (Mrs. Shirley Willliams) has made. Whenever the rule of law is being suspended by an assembly whose traditions are enshrined in the development of the rule of law, there will be great anxiety lest the case has not been presented in the appropriate fashion.
  The overwhelming argument for the confirmation of emergency powers is the configuration of three threats to our energy supplies. It is not just the miners' strike. It is not just the dispute concerning the Electrical Power Engineers' Association. It is the sombre shadow that overhangs the future of our oil supplies. Were it not for that, I do not believe that the case for emergency powers would
  702
  have such overwhelming validity. The point was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State far the Home Department when, in commending these measures, he referred to:
  "the grave uncertainty concerning oil supplies."
  It is fair to argue and it is fair to demonstrate that there is a potential disadvantage in the taking of emergency powers. There is a danger that such powers will be seen as a strategic master-move in dealing with the miners' strike. We would be deluding ourselves if we did not think that that interpretation would be put upon the measure.
  In that context I offer a word of warning. That is the most appropriate word to offer my right hon. Friend. He need have no doubt about the support which he will get for the exercise of emergency powers because I believe there is throughout the country a deep apprehension that we live in a state of emergency in the current situation. As always there is a danger of confusion as to where law lies and where executive exhortation begins. My right hon. Friend on Tuesday referred to
  "democracy requiring some respect for the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 259.]
  The reality is that in the miners' dispute we will see the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 put to the test. It is important that we should know clearly what is the law in respect of that Act. It is as dangerous for the executive and for statutory bodies such as the Pay Board to exceed the authority that they possess under the law as it is dangerous for participants in industrial disputes to do so.
  There are two essential legal requirements under the Counter-Inflation Act. There is the requirement in Section 5(1) to notify a pay increase. That is enshrined in the statute. Nobody is suggesting that there is the slightest doubt that such notification will proceed. The second important element of law which will be at test will be Section 7(3), which says that
  "The powers conferred by subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by order, or by notice given to the person, or each of the persons, paying the remuneration subject to the restriction."
  Therefore, the law will be engaged when the Pay Board informs the National Coal

  703
  Board that it is proceeding with a settlement which in its judgment falls outside the legal requirements of the Counter-Inflation Act. I say that because I believe that there is always the danger in these circumstances of usurpation of power and usurpation of the requirements which are laid down by the House in statutes. It is important that we should remind ourselves of that, because we have a fairly well documented history of the difficulties which attend prices and incomes legislation in that respect.
  Those of us who hold most firmly to the virtue of the rule of law have always had a rigid and eccentric devotion to try to pass law which is enforceable and to try to avoid law which is unenforceable. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) recognised that the situation in respect of the miners' dispute is not quite as rigid and is not such an immediate confrontation as some have suggested. I note with approval his remarks in column 305. He said:
  "I suggest that an adjustment could be made within the total offer."
  In column 306 he said:
  "I emphasise that I consider the present award to be generous. I do not think that it is the last Word."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 305–6.]
  I am not so foolish as to be drawn into the merits of the National Coal Board's offer or the reaction of the mineworkers. All I am saying is that it is important to recognise the degree of flexibility which has been conferred by the law, and to recognise the area where the law is established, is paramount and unchallengeable. The important thing to remember is that the code is available for interpretation by the Pay Board. It is as well to read into the record Section 7(1) of the Counter-Inflation Act, which says that
  "The Pay Board shall exercise the powers … in such ways as appear to them appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of the code which concern remuneration are implemented."
  If we had any doubts about that, this morning's Financial Times carries an article that is particularly topical. It is by Sandy McLachlan and is headed:
  "Pay Board relaxes rule on profit-related income".
  704
  It might not have come on perhaps the most appropriate day for the Ministerial case. I quote part of it, however:
  "It now appear that the Pay Board will will put its own interpretation on Clause 159"—
  of the code—
  "on the basis that the strict DE interpretation would make it the only clause in the whole of the Pay Code which could require an individual to take a cut in income."
  Of course it is wholly appropriate that the Pay Board should be making that interpretation, otherwise Parliament and those of us who toiled on the Standing Committee would not have said.
  "The Pay Board shall exercise the powers …
  but instead would have said,
  "The Minister shall exercise the powers".
  Again, it is just as well to remember that the code is not itself so self-evident that in its own right it constitutes law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said in Standing Committee:
  "… the code is not law in the sense that it does not act directly on those who pay wages … it is applied by the agencies through orders and notices and is in that sense subject to challenge in the courts if the agencies are acting beyond the powers given them by Parliament and interpreting the code in a way which could be challenged under ordinary law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 8th February 1973; c. 326.]
  So these are all things we ought to take very much in mind before considering any possible use of the emergency powers in respect of industrial disputes, the conclusion of which we hope will strengthen respect for the law rather than diminish it.
  In the whole context of this debate and of these problems, much play is made of public opinion. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend enjoys full-hearted public support for the emergency measures, but I ask that there be some caution about the engagement of public opinion as being a major factor in determining industrial disputes. There is creeping into a certain number of our debates and deliberations what seems to me to be almost a determination to engage in trial by public opinion which is worthy of the Chinese cultural revolution of a few years ago.

  705
  My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), for whom I have a genuine and lively respect, talked about the importance of public opinion in our debate on 13th November, when he said:
  "… if one had to name the leading cause why the miners won the strike"—
  that is, the strike of two years ago—
  "I would accept that it was because the Government misjudged public opinion. This time if the miners go on strike it will be because they in turn have misjudged public opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 290.]
  My right hon. Friend there, used the word "won". He said that the miners "won" the strike, and this, as an antithesis, suggests the situation of victory and defeat. I do not like that concept. It is always one of the difficulties, whenever the Government get closely involved in industrial disputes, that they are elevated to confrontation in a victory-defeat situation, and that simply is not a reality for the Government.
  The Government must win, in a sense. Most industrial disputes are concluded by employers and unions who know perfectly well that they live to fight again and again, and neither side engages in the language and terminology of unconditional surrender or total victory. It is very much more difficult for the Government to see their authority infringed in a way that an industrial management can infringe its authority in the settlement of an industrial dispute.
  Therefore, I am particularly anxious about the extent to which public opinion is being drawn in as one of the great factors which will help resolve this conflict, because if opinion is going to be a determining factor it will be the opinion in the mining community itself and not the opinion in the public at large. I am not sure that the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be terrified by the knowledge of the contempt in which they are held in the stockbroker belt.
  Mr. William Clark: Cool it.
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark)says, "cool it." I agree I am sure that the Financial Times is passed from hand to hand at the pithead and that the miners
  706
  are keen to know just what is the balance of social forces engaged in the conflict.
  One of the difficulties of engaging public opinion as one of the factors in resolving a dispute is that it means a cultivation of the media—and most of us as politicians know what our reactions are when we feel that the media are loaded against us. There is no reason why we should suppose that the feeling of distress and resentment which often enters into many of us will somehow or other escape those of our colleagues who lead their lives in industrial working circumstances. That is why I have great anxiety that some people may be inclined to develop this as one of the weapons in the dispute. If they do so they will discover that it breeds more resentment than it provides a spirit of accommodation.
  It is true that behind this dispute in the mines looms the spectre of Mr. Daly, but I hope that we will also recognise that behind the spectre of Mr. Daly is an even larger and, in my view, even more substantial spectre—the weekly exodus of 500 miners or so.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Six hundred.
  Mr. Biffen: As ever, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) intervenes with other figures. But I, being immensely conservative and understating my case, prefer to stick at 500. But there is not another employer losing a workforce on the scale of 500 a month. Therefore, I would like my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to tell us what analysis has been made of the reason why 500 miners leave the industry every week. How much of it is because they have come to the end of their working life? How many are leaving in the prime of their working life?
  I think that what we are beginning to see is the unacceptable face of market forces. They simply cannot be willed away, and we have to recognise this as best we can and to reconcile it within the framework of the law as this House has fashioned it. That is why I say that we have placed on the Government a formidable task, and in the discharge of that formidable task they have all my good wishes and all my anxious support.
  I conclude with this modest precept. If the Tory Party is to draw upon its experience of industrial affairs from times

  707
  past—and the mining communities are intensely conservative and often very conscious of the past—I hope that the Government will be encouraged by the social awareness displayed by Stanley Baldwin rather than the flamboyance of a Winston Churchill.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: It is always to me an occasion to follow the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) when speaking on industrial affairs. It is a great pleasure to hear one's own case put so eloquently to the Government by a Conservative. It reminds me of a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when, referring to the Conservative Party, he said, "By God, you could not see the knives but the blood was all over the place."
  The hon. Member for Oswestry said that the Counter-Inflation Act had been put to the test. Of course it has. It is either bad luck or bad judgment on the part of the Department that it has had to tackle the "Brigade of Guards" of the industrial movement at first go. The Department has played the Joker. Whether it did it on part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, King or Queen, it has been played this time.
  There are some strong arguments to back up our case; we have only to start with Wilberforce who placed the miners in a special category. The Minister should look at this.
  The other argument is the exodus of miners from the pits at the rate of about 600 a month. They are leaving areas such as mine and we can ill-afford to lose them. It is not the old ones who are going. As was said in an earlier debate, the men around the mining areas are beginning to look like Dad's Army. The 30-year-olds are disappearing, the 40-year-olds are becoming the exception, and we are left with the men who are trapped in the industry, in their late 40s and 50s and 60s. The Minister must pay attention to this.
  Everyone will agree that there is an emergency. I would never have believed, wearing my other hat for a moment, that I would have advised the Opposition to vote against the regulations introducing a state of emergency, but the Government have not come clean on this occasion and
  708
  we must register a protest vote. I have argued strongly for that course of action. The miners are not responsible for the balance of payments. They were not responsible for the Middle East war. They certainly are not responsible for the power cuts we are suffering at the moment. To say that they are is a sham and the Government know it, but they say it to cover up their incompetence over the past three years. The Government must find some excuse and try to flex their muscles. They try to pass the buck on to the mining industry.
  This overtime ban has been a long time coming. We did not seek the help of President Sadat. There was no collusion between him and the NUM executive, asking him to start a war to help us. I do not think that we would be discussing this subject today if it had not been for the Middle East situation. The miners' overtime ban would have come in any case, but the stocks distributed around the country would have given people a breathing space and the Government would have tried to settle things through the importation of oil. They would have tried to wage a war of attrition with the NUM.
  We hear all sorts of talk. I heard it in the other place the other day. I take strong exception to people, sitting on their ermine and mink, telling me that my miners are bully boys, blackmailers and such things. They are not. They are hard-working members of society, working in a dangerous, unsocial and health-sapping industry. No matter what tools or machines we give them, whether we send them to work with a spanner or a shovel, it is still one of the most health-sapping and unsocial jobs in the country.
  The miners are worth more to society than society pays them. For years, until 1972, they had it thrust down their throats, "If you do not do as you are told we will shut the pits around you." They got fed up to the teeth so they said, "All right, shut them." They went on strike not knowing what would happen and they came out of it knowing their worth to society. Having learnt that lesson, they have decided that they will get the rate for the job.
  I have spent a long time in the mining industry. We mining Members of Parliament go back to our constituencies on Fridays into this industry. We live alongside the mates with whom we used to

  709
  work. The only difference is that on a Monday morning they go to the coal face and I come down here. I spent my time talking to them, saying that they should not accept their lot. This has been my job, telling these people that they should not accept things as they are, that they should reach for the sky, should want a bigger share of the cake. I am not asking for the bakery but they are worth more than they are paid today.
  If the Minister wants to know where the overtime ban started I can tell him. It was not in Marxist Scotland or Leninist Wales or even Red Yorkshire. This one started in Nottinghamshire. In my area of Nottinghamshire they were intending to take unilateral action. On 1st November they were going to go it alone. It was my opinion that they should wait to see what happened.
  This is an area suffering from a manpower shortage. We have faces that are just not being worked. Productivity is down in an area that is supposed to be expanding. The productivity rate is static. This is an area that has made nearly £300 million profit since nationalisation. This year, for the first time, we shall be in the red. I do not know what the NCB has said to the Prime Minister but I know what is said at local level. The management knows that if it wants the manpower it has to buy itself into the local market. It did this 10 years ago when rates in the industry in my area were in excess of other rates to the tune of about £5 a week. That is no longer so. So the exodus from the pits continues. Management knows the answer and I know the answer. It is that somehow or other we have to find some way of putting more money into the wage packets of the men.
  This state of emergency, imposed after one day's overtime ban, has proved to the miners their worth to society. They are after the rate for the job and I do not blame them for that. I have spent too long among them telling them to lift themselves up and not to accept the station in life which the State seems to accord them. They will have to fight for anything they get. The Minister, the Government and I know that for the Government to put themselves in a win or lose situation with the miners is a dangerous thing to do. By his actions today the Minister has put himself in
  710
  a win or lose situation. He must know, as I do, that if the miners hold their nerve on this matter they are bound to win.
  I take strong exception to the Prime Minister wrapping himself up in the Union Jack and singing, "Land of Hope and Glory" and telling the miners that they are not being patriotic. What did the miners get by being patriotic? They went nearly to the bottom of the wages league. This point must be considered.
  The hon. Member for Oswestry said that public opinion will not matter a great deal to those in the stockbroker belt who have their £5,000 or £6,000 a year and those who are dodging the column by getting their wages increased in one way or another. What matters most is what happens in the coalfields. If the Minister wants expert advice on feelings in the coalfields he has only to ask hon. Members who live amongst miners every weekend.
  We are in a very serious situation. I accept straight away that there is an emergency. I would agree to the Government taking emergency powers straight away but for one thing: that they are being deceitful and dishonest. This is a political ploy and shows the depths to which the Government have sunk. If the skipper of this ship is prepared to let this country slip because of his dogmatic attitude and wants to blame the miners for letting the country slip, as slip it will, then the sooner the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pack up and go away and let others who have the guts to take the necessary decisions into those Government seats the better. I hope that they do it quickly, before we slide too far into a situation from which it will be difficult to recover.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made a very interesting speech. Before he gets too enthusiastic about moving across to this side of the House, may I refer him to the table on page 5 of the Wilberforce Report, which clearly shows, despite his anxiety for the miners, that between 1965 and 1970 the miners fell from third to twelfth place in the wages league. If he has such grave concern for the miners, it is extraordinary the way

  711
  that they have fallen down the ladder. However, he may wish to express for his constituency party his feeling for the miners, as I do, too. They are a remarkable collection of men who do a very good job which I should not be prepared to do.
  One problem facing the Government in the next 10 years is to find a technology which will enable us to get coal from the ground without having such a vast mining force.—[Interruption.]—If there is any ambiguity about that, perhaps I should explain that we shall have to face that problem later.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I was tempted to remark to my colleagues that the hon. Gentleman's comment is not helpful, because the extra ingredient that he is now adding to the situation is that the miners of Britain can look forward to unemployment at a very early date. That will obviously encourage them to ask for even more money next year than they are asking for now.
  Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman did not make a very useful contribution during the Labour Government's term in office, which lasted seven years. In that time 276 pits were closed. Under this Government only 33 pits have been closed. Therefore, it is the Labour Government, not the Conservative Government, who have been responsible for massive pit closures. I am looking ahead 20 years, when it will be too much to expect people to work in the conditions in mines. Therefore, we shall need a new system of technology which will make it easier to extract natural gas from coal in situ, and coal from the ground.
  My right hon. Friend is fully justified in introducing this state of emergency on the basis of the attitude that has been displayed by the mining community and some of its spokesmen. He would also be fully justified in bringing in a state of emergency in view of the situation in the oil industry. After all, Regulations 21 and 22 of the emergency powers provide, in a state of emergency, for allocation and rationing to cover oil.
  I should be in favour of the allocation of oil by Government Departments and of an extensive oil rationing system. That would conserve foreign exchange,
  712
  because we have not had a very satisfactory record in past months. Oil costs us roughly £1,000 million a year in foreign exchange. Therefore, the more economies we can make in this direction the better. It would be much fairer for the Government to allocate oil supplies than the oil companies concerned, particularly if priorities are to be established, since the Government can lay down correct orders binding on the companies. Although oil stocks are high at the moment, they will diminish.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the price of bread?
  Mr. Skeet: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen. He has no coalfields in his division.
  The equilibrium in the international trade in oil has been disrupted. In my judgment of the Middle East situation, that equilibrium is unlikely to be reestablished for some time.
  Our principal supplier of oil in the first six months of this year was Kuwait. The September rate was 3.5 million barrels a day. The current rate is 2.24 million barrels a day. That means a shortfall of 1.26 million barrels a day or 36 per cent. down.
  The second largest oil supplier to the United Kingdom was Saudi Arabia. The September rate was 8.55 million barrels a day. The November rate was 6.20 million barrels a day, so there is a considerable shortfall there—a reduction of between 32 and 36 per cent. However, if Saudi Arabia had fulfilled its pledge to bring up production to 9.10 million barrels a day in November there would have been no anxiety. This would accommodate world demand, but the rate has been falling severely.
  The shortfall from the Arab world is about 5.5 million barrels a day and supplies to the United Kingdom are 20 per cent. down. I do not think that any Government can laugh this aside and say that they are satisfied with the present situation. They will have to act now or a little later.
  Let us assume and be extremely sanguine about prospects in the Middle East. Many people have overlooked the fact that this situation has very little to do with the Middle East war. The Arabs have discovered the plain economic facts

  713
  of life and have adopted the old Texan method that prorationing will have the effect of forcing up the price of oil. This was started by Libya, extended to Kuwait, and has now spread through all OPEC countries. If the Arabs are prepared to escalate the price of oil to secure more for it, the non-embargo States will hop on the bandwaggon as well and all available oil on the world market will cost more.
  Iranian light, which had a posted price at the beginning of October 1973 of 2·9 dollars a barrel, had gone up to about 5 dollars a barrel by 16th October. Taking the posted price as about 40 per cent. above market price, what can we expect Iranian light to secure on the international market? I am informed that deals are going on, probably with the Japanese, at 5·40 dollars a barrel. That is quite a significant figure.
  Let us come nearer home to the sweeter oils of the Mediterranean. Libyan posted prices have escalated from 4·6 dollars to 8·9 dollars. We are fairly reliably informed that deals are going on at the moment at 6·50 dollars a barrel. But companies are paying 7·60 dollars for buy-back oil. This trend is likely to continue. Therefore, the prices that we shall have to pay on world markets will gradually approximate posted prices. This may take a little time to achieve.
  I read in the Financial Times that a United States refiner had bought 80,000 tons of crude oil from Tunis at a cost of between 12 and 15 dollars a barrel. Faced with that situation, if there is a constriction in demand, whether or not artificially produced by the Arabs, and whether or not non-embargo countries are prepared to support it, prices will escalate.
  In order to save foreign exchange and to ensure that we do not run down our stocks too fast, it is desirable to have a fuel rationing system at an early date so that the result is not too severe. The argument against rationing may be that there are plenty of stocks, that oil is coming into this country in tankers from the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, and that additional supplies can be obtained from non-embargo countries, such as Iran, Nigeria, Indonesia and Venezuela. But most of the Venezuelan oil has been pre-empted by the United States, and Indonesian oil by the
  714
  Japanese and the Dutch by a secret agreement recently negotiated. Certain supplies of Nigerian oil come here, while Iran is sitting pretty and can sell to all buyers at top prices. There is, therefore, a lot of competition to force prices higher.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will modify his stand on this and see that he has brought in the emergency on three grounds: first, because of the coal situation; secondly, because of the complicating factor of the electricity industry's troubles; thirdly, which is important—and my right hon. Friend may have to introduce a Bill following the state of emergency—to cover oil shortages.
  It occurs to me that we could introduce one or two rather useful economies which would help the situation. These have been mentioned in the United States, and they could be adopted here to ensure that the emergency is not too severe. First, the resetting of thermostats in homes 3º lower than at present in winter and summer would result in a useful saving. Second is improved efficiency in energy users in industrial and commercial buildings. The United States has recommended the use of cold water in laundries, though that might not be too popular with housewives. The third is mandatory car checks every six months to ensure fine tuning of all engines. The fourth is the imposition of a 50 m.p.h. speed limit. The fifth is the use of car pools to increase the average number of people in a car from 1·3 to 2·3. The effect of those measures in the United States would be to reduce consumption by about 16 per cent. That is a significant figure, but I think that in this country we could get by without any great anxiety with a saving of between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent.
  I have one or two recommendations to make for the future. A contribution could be made to the mining industry by bringing in the private sector. I mentioned that the other day, and I did so quite sincerely. The practice has been followed with advantage in the United States. There should also be a greater yield from opencast mining. In the United States, opencast mining represents 45 per cent. of the total output of coal. I realise that that would give rise to environmental problems, but we want a

  715
  short-term solution, and that method could help the immediate situation. A Bill on the environment is shortly to be introduced, and my suggestion could be considered in conjunction with it.
  It might hearten the miners to press ahead with the gasification of coal. That would be of use not only to us but to the United States. We could import more liquid natural gas, and also go ahead with the nuclear programme. The British Gas Corporation's predecessor, the Gas Council, entered into a contract with Algeria in 1964. It is for 1 billion cubic metres per annum, but since then all parties in Europe have been negotiating hard with the Algerians. The French, the West German and the Italians have committed themselves to more than 40 billion cubic metres per annum, but we have stopped still and apparently have not been doing any negotiating on this matter. The United States will ultimately be importing at the rate of about 32 billion cubic metres per annum from Algeria. It is extraordinary that our partners in Western Europe can get in huge supplies which could be utilised here, while we have not been going overseas to secure the supplies that we require. We had one project in 1964. That was followed fairly recently by negotiations for the Frigg field, in the Norwegian sector, but we may or may not get it. If the Germans, the French and the Italians can get supplies, there is no reason why we should not. It would have short-term advantages.
  I now propose to make some brief remarks on the mining industry and to express my anxiety on one matter which will probably favour the miners. I said that in the wages table the miners had fallen to twelfth place in October 1970. I appreciate that under phase 3 the miner has done exceptionally well with a 16½1 per cent. increase, if one includes productivity arrangements. The April 1973 figures for manufacturing industry show that average weekly earnings were £38·1, while in the mining industry the figure was £39·8, but the miner is still well down the ladder.
  Miners have progressively gone down the wages ladder over the years—both Conservative and Labour Governments
  716
  allowed that to happen—but they cannot expect to be brought to the top of the ladder overnight. They have to be patient, otherwise the economy will be wrecked. The present Government have done a remarkable job in helping the miners. Under Wilberforce the miners received a 22 per cent. increase, and they are now offered an extra 16½ per cent. under phase 3. That shows that the Government appreciate the situation in the industry. I have no doubt that the mining industry will be elevated to the top of the ladder in due course because of the nature of the work, but to expect that to occur overnight is unrealistic.
  I must pray in aid the strenuous efforts made by the Government under the Coal Industry Act, 1973 to bring in vast improvements, both centrally and marginally. In addition, by going into Europe the National Coal Board has been provided with a springboard for exports to Europe. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may have doubts about that, but we are now in the European club, and the National Coal Board can take advantage of the opportunities that are offered for export, particularly as Germany has notified the Community that its production will be reduced from 100 million tons to 82 million tons by 1985.
  Mr. Brynmor John: How does the hon. Gentleman expect coal to be exported if we continue to lose miners at the present rate? He cannot expect his Boy's Own newspaper notion of using suction pumps to get coal out of the ground to be feasible. There will not be enough miners to meet the home demand, and exports will be out of the question.
  Mr. Skeet: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that miners are leaving the industry at the rate of 600 a week. That is not surprising, because they do not support the attitude of the militants in the field. If there were no militants in the field but moderates instead, miners would not be leaving the industry at that rate. I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept that, but that is the truth. Miners like to have some stability in their industry and I hope that they will find it.
  Can it be said that the National Union of Mineworkers is adopting a responsible attitude to the situation? It is failing

  717
  to maintain the security of systems underground and to go through with the necessary maintenance. A short time ago some of my hon. Friends and I went down Daw Mill colliery near Whitacre in the Meriden division. We were told that many of the jacks underground were lost because they fell in when the face crashed during the last series of troubles. Normally when people go on strike they do not want to see their own establishments destroyed, but apparently the NUM is not concerned about that issue. I think that there would have been greater sympathy for the miners if they had agreed to carry out the full procedures for ensuring the safety of their pits.
  Finally, the miners are on ground that is a little weak if the rate of absenteeism is about 20 per cent., as it is now. This is keeping down production. I should have thought that it would be advantageous to the country, realising the problem of the oil situation and the shortage of supplies, if the rate was maintained at the recent level of 3½ million tons per week.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has taken a continuing interest in coal and energy debates in the House since he came to the House two and a half years ago. During that time our total energy situation has grown progressively worse. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman alone for that. He can from time to time get his industrial facts right, but his industrial conclusions dismay me. I think they sometimes equally alarm some of his right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. It may be that the Home Secretary was simply holding his head so that he could hear the hon. Gentleman better, but perhaps it was for a different reason.
  How the hon. Member for Bedford, after all the information that has been poured out in the Press, on radio and in Front Bench statements, on the nature of the dispute between the National Union of Mineworkers, the Coal Board and the Government, can say that this is a go-slow, I do not know. I wonder where his information comes from. He is extremely selective. This is a ban on overtime. There are parts of pits where it is very dangerous even to try to work
  718
  a go-slow. This is not a go-slow or a work-to-rule. It is British people exercising their right not to work overtime. No law can compel them to do so.
  The hon. Member went on to say that he hoped that they would have some regard for the safety and the security of the pits and their employment. Has not he hon. Gentleman heard that from last Monday lunchtime a committee of the NUM with delegated responsibility and powers has been operating? If the management of any pit thought that because of the overtime ban there was any danger to the security of the pit or the life or safety of any of the men employed, that committee could be contacted and given the facts, and the situation could then be dealt with on that basis.
  It is not the purpose of the NUM to close down its own industry, and its members are only asking for a living wage.
  Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the last occasion when we had these severe disturbances we lost many pits because of flooding and the collapse of some roofs, simply because the safety aspect was neglected?
  Mr. Ogden: I deny that statement completely. If the Government can produce evidence of one pit being closed for that reason, I shall apologise to the Minister and to the House. On my information no pit was closed for that reason.
  I ought to have declared my interest already. The hon. Gentleman's comments distracted me. I am a member of the NUM and sponsored in the House by the NUM. Perhaps I am an unusual sponsored Member because in West Derby, Liverpool, perhaps only 20 of the 60,000 electors work in coal mines, and those are outside the constituency. There are no pits in my constituency, and I get no votes from what I may or may not say about mining. I am proud to declare that interest, as I have done on all occasions when I have taken part in mining or energy debates.
  British coal miners want no more than a living wage. They do not want less, but they do not seek more. They have broken no law. Every Minister has admitted that. They have broken no contract of employment in any way. They have taken action to seek what they regard as a

  719
  living wage, but they have not sought any confrontation with the Government. They have made that clear repeatedly. At local level, pit level, branch, union or federation level, no one has suggested that they seek to use industrial action to defeat a lawfully elected Government. There have been enough warnings from their own elected leaders about the possible consequences of any such action that they might take. It is no secret that they do not like the Conservative Government. They are not alone in that. Equally, it is no secret that they want to change the Government, at the right time—the sooner the better—but through the proper procedure of a General Election. They are pledged to work for a new Labour Government. They are pledged not to use industrial action to defeat the present Government. That would be as much a threat to their rights and responsibilities as to those of anyone else.
  This confrontation is not sought by the NUM. The miners have claimed their rights and a living wage, and they have accepted their responsibilities. It is time that the present Conservative Government not only claimed their rights but also accepted their responsibilities.
  It is more difficult to say this kind of thing to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary than it would be to say it to some of his colleagues on the Government Front Bench or to some of his colleagues on the back benches. He has a record of being a reasonable man—although some of the legislation that he has sponsored has been complete anathema to me. It is more difficult to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House than it is of some of his colleagues.
  The present economic situation of this country brings no joy to the right hon. Gentleman or to his party or his supporters. It brings no joy or comfort to my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is no party advantage in the situation. We are still a proud and strong country. We have difficulties, but that does not override the fact that basically we are talking about a crisis of management rather than any overwhelming weaknesses of the country. Those occasional weaknesses exist, but we should not allow the fact that we have these difficulties from time to time to persuade us to believe that we
  720
  have no future or will fail in some way in the future.
  The credit for the fact that we are still a strong and proud country goes to those outside the House who work long, work hard and work well. It is surprising that they ask for so little in return. They work, perhaps, for 48 weeks in a year, and have about a fortnight's holiday which they may take abroad. They live in ordinary homes with a little security. That is all that many people ask. It is not too much to ask.
  The responsibility for the present crisis must rest fairly and squarely on the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, not only for what they have done but for what they have failed to do. Too often they have done the right thing too late or the wrong thing too soon. The responsibility for the present state of emergency lies with the Government.
  The real reasons are becoming a little clearer. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must realise that in other parts of the country, not only in the House, and certainly not only in the coalfields, it appears that the reason for the state of emergency is to try to blame British coal miners for the Government's failures. That is how it looks from many places. The hon. Gentleman has the duty to dispel those fears, not only in the House but outside it. The Government are passing the buck. They want others to carry the can. The miners will not do that.
  Let us look at how events have developed in the past few weeks. I take, for example, the introduction of the emergency debate. I do not know whether it is fortunate, or not for me that you, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair at present. How many applications for a Standing Order No. 9 debate have there been from back-bench PPSs or at that time ex-PPSs? Shall we say that it was very fortunate for the Government's planning that the debate came when it did. The Prime Minister, the Cabinet and right hon. Gentlemen and their colleagues seem to be part of a well-planned, well-timed and co-ordinated attempt to put the blame for Britain's economic difficulties on the coal miners and their leaders. When one considers the things that have been said, by Ministers, and, even worse, highlighted outside the House, that comes through time and again.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member said something which I should like to have explained to me. That was a suggestion that my granting of the Standing Order No. 9 debate was part of a well-planned operation. I do not quite understand that. I made my own decision, without consultation with anyone.
  Mr. Ogden: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It was not intended in that way. There were two parts. I said that it was fortunate for the Government that this well-planned and well-timed operation was able to be put forward by one of their own colleagues and they were fortunate, secondly, in the fact that it was accepted by you. It is a fact that applications for debates under Standing Order No. 9 are not always accepted quite so readily—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There were even more hon. Members on the Opposition side who stood to ask that leave should be given than there were on the Government side.
  Mr. Ogden: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. I was not meaning to imply that you were involved in the well-planned operation—although we know that if you had been it would have been an extremely well planned one. I make no aspersions as to your conspiring with the Government. Before you took your present office you may have done so, but not since then. If I have offended you, Mr. Speaker, I apologise. I accuse the Government. I do not accuse the Chair.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right. The state of emergency arises from the miners' situation taken together with other matters, but that was not by any means clear on Monday. It was not clear in the reports coming here before Monday. There was then an emphasis on the coal miners. The trade balances, the trade returns, interest rates and the value of the £ were all getting worse over the past month. The Government must have known this, though they denied it every time. The Opposition told them often enough. Many of the Government's own back benchers told them often enough, as did many people outside the House. The Government pretended that it was not happening; they took no obvious notice. They made a determined effort to go for boom or bust.
  722
  The Prime Minister is not in control of events outside the House, but he is obviously in control of his party inside the House. It may not be so much that his colleagues trust his judgment or believe that this is the way forward. They obviously know that their choice is that they will sail or swim with the Prime Minister, or they will sink.
  Over the past six months the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet have been apostles of joy and confidence. Everything was going well, they said, Col-gate's had nothing on them. They claimed that the export boom was going ahead and that we were turning the corner, that lasting prosperity was on the way. Even last week one Cabinet Minister went so far as to talk about the problems of success. That was the atmosphere which was being engendered. Even in the opening days of this Session people were saying "It looks like being a quiet Session." How misguided and optimistic could we have been!
  During the Middle East war we were told time and time again that there was no danger of any cuts in our oil supplies, that for one reason or another we were the friends of the Arabs. Some said that we had to sell the Israelis to guarantee that supply. It may be that friendship was the price of oil and oil was the price of growth. Time and time again we were told by Ministers and by back benchers that there was no danger to our oil supplies. Many people believed it.
  That has been the background to the negotiations on stages 1, 2 and 3. The National Union of Mineworkers is a responsible union. It has been negotiating with the National Coal Board. The union was well aware of the outline proposals for the Government's phase 3 limits, but carried on negotiating its claim with the NCB. There is no bad feeling between the NCB and the NUM. The NCB has done all that it can to meet what it considers to be millers' real needs. The quarrel is not between the NCB and the NUM. It is between those who are asking for a living wage and the Government, because of the limits the Government have imposed at this time.
  Flexibility is a current topic. There are continuing negotiations. There is no law which compels miners to work overtime. The leaders of the NUM are well aware

  723
  of the very strong feelings of their members. They recommended a ban on overtime. The effect of that ban is a good measure of the support that the recommendation had from the areas. If the recommendation had not been acceptable in the areas, pits would still be working overtime. Men would still be working overtime. The acceptance of the recommendation for the ban is a measure of the support that the men are giving to their leaders.
  The Government should recognise that as a measure of the confidence and support of the miners for their leaders and as an indication of what the result of a ballot might be if that were put to the members, whether it be for a strike or anything else.
  Less than two years ago the Wilberforce tribunal recognised the right of British coal miners to a living wage. That tribunal was set up after difficulties that could have been avoided. All that the miners ask is that they be allowed to negotiate with the National Coal Board a living wage for 1973 and 1974 and a standard of living not less than that which was recognised by the Government's own tribunal less than two years ago.
  The wage negotiations and the wage scales are complicated. The best offer, under the proposed stage 3 proposals, under the national power loading agreement, is £39·36. These are the most skilled workers doing the most dangerous and difficult work in the country.
  Now that we are in the midst of a fuel crisis, no doubt the Secretary of State is following the advice which has been given to him and is coming to work by Tube rather than in a Government limousine. If so, he will no doubt have seen a poster which I have noticed particularly on Northern Line Tube stations. It is a large green poster containing very few words, advertising for temporary shorthand typists at £40 a week. Are the Government arguing that the most skilled coal miner in Britain, producing the coal that we need, is not worth more than a temporary shorthand typist in London?
  Members of Parliament have to work 52 weeks a year. In the ordinary way, people working outside this place can work 48 weeks a year. A coal miner is lucky if he works for 40 weeks in a
  724
  year. This is because of the nature of his employment with injuries, accidents and disease such as pneumoconiosis. A shot firer on £16 a week was at one time taking home more per year than a man ripping at the coal face who was supposed to be earning £10 a week more. A skilled coal miner is worth more than a temporary shorthand typist in London.
  The Government have a choice. There is a crisis in the short term and in the long term. If the Government can get a settlement accepted reluctantly, unwillingly, unfairly by the NUM and the workers, we shall not keep the workers we have and we shall not attract any more workers into the industry. We may get work moving again in the coalfields, and we may get some increased production and solve some of the short-term difficulties, but we shall not stop men from leaving the pits at the rate of 500 or 600 a week—not only the older men but of all ages and grades. In that event, in the long term Britain will not get the coal we need.
  In every other sphere it is said that we should pay the rate for the job. We need British coal. We now have a great opportunity. I hoped at one time that we could export some coal to the Continent, but it now looks as though we shall need it all for ourselves. The only way to get coal in this society is by paying the rate for the job.
  Negotiations are continuing. If the claim of flexibility is right, let the Government say "We accept the need. It is not blackmail. We will correct some of the misunderstandings which have arisen over the past few weeks and allow the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to continue their negotiations without the threat—real or imagined—implicit in some of the sayings emanating from the Government in the past few weeks. This is not a confrontation or war with the miners." This must be proved. There is still some time for these negotiations, without breaking stage 3. The Government must recognise that if we want the coal, as we do, they must pay the rate for the job. This is all that the miners are asking. This is what they deserve.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby

  725
  (Mr. Ogden) has made a fairly ameliorative speech and I do not think he has put up the temper of this debate. I am afraid that from time to time, the hon. Member for Yarmouth puts up the temper of debates, but he will try not to do so this afternoon.
  Chickens have a way of coming home to roost, and there were a number of us, including the Government, who were very worried about the introduction of statutory controls on wages and prices. The very existence of phase 3 stops any possibility of free bargaining and settlement of a rate for the job, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, called it for the miners. Though a miner would probably hate to do the job of a doctor, I have no doubt at all that miners do a very hard job and it is hard to believe that £40 a week in today's terms is an adequate return. The difficulty is that we have passed laws in this House, and the rules under phase 3 control the wages which may be negotiated which puts us in a dreadful dilemma. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in a brilliant speech, talked about that aspect.
  I have no doubt that, in relation to many other industrial workers, miners should be paid considerably more, but one cannot just say that they should be at the top of the scale, as some hon. Members opposite did, and leave it at that. What cheek it is for them to judge all the workers in the nation and say, "Miners deserve more money for their job than anybody else." I should not have the nerve to compare the job of a miner with that of a nurse who is looking after subnormal children or subnormal grown-up men, perhaps in a place like Rampton.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I agree with most of what he has said, but is it not a fact that, at this moment, the miners, the nurses, the doctors and the dustmen, who are doing the most urgent and necessary jobs, are among the lowest paid, while the property speculators and the sharks, who are not doing anything good for the country, are getting thousands and thousands of pounds a year?
  Mr. Fell: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. It really is an abuse to ask a friend of his, as I thought
  726
  I was, to give way and then to use the opportunity for a partisan political speech with which to bash the House. I began my speech by saying that I would try to be uncontroversial, and the situation is quite difficult enough without foolish Members, such as myself, giving way to hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
  The country is facing a dilemma over the wages of many people, but we are stuck with a statutory prices and incomes policy. It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Ham, North to keep nodding, but this policy is statutory largely because there was a period—and even in saying this I do not want to raise the temper of the debate—when certain of the trade unions, certain members of certain of the trade unions, gentlemen who are sometimes called "tearaways" were being very intransigent and refusing to agree to anything. That is partly why we have a statutory prices and incomes policy, instead of an agreed one. The hon. Member for West Ham, North wags his head. I am glad, after all, that he did intervene because I can now refer to him.
  The statutory policy was forced upon this Government by certain sections of the population, which Governments have been responsible for promoting because Governments have given birth to the charter of the tearaways ever since the war, as have some managements and people controlling factories. Time and time again, such people have said to workers, "Right, we will go this far, but that is it. This is the finish of these negotiations." We have then had the spectacle of some of these tearaways saying, "You do not know what you are doing. What you have to do is to get really tough, and you will then get what you want. The only way of getting what you want is by being really tough." So we have had in certain industries tougher and tougher and rougher and rougher negotiations which have progressively made industrial relations in Britain worse and worse.
  It is hardly surprising that industrial relations become worse and worse when the country agrees to pay people not at the market rate for the job but a crazy system of general agreements covering the wages of everybody in a

  727
  certain grade or industry. Of course this in crazy, but we are too lazy to do anything about it. I do not know whether we shall be able to do anything about it, because the trade unions would be horrified if it were suggested that two people doing the same job, one lazily and the other with the utmost verve and activity, should not be paid the same rate. Furthermore, managements and owners of industry would also be horrified if they had to work out what pay their workers are worth. The myth has grown up, by tacit agreement between the two sides of industry, that people should be treated as cyphers and numbers and all paid the same, whether they are good, bad or indifferent.
  Thank goodness that there is still a little bit of light being shed on the problem of the miners and their ban on overtime. As I understand it, the negotiations are by no means finished. They are simply suspended till Monday. I pray that the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board will find a way to settle the dispute. It has to be done within phase 3 of the pay policy because that is the law of the land.
  The Opposition are just as much part of that and just as interested in the law of the land not being broken as Government supporters are. Anyone who aids and abets the breaking of the solemn laws of the land which have been passed by this Parliament contributes to the end of democracy. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hitchen (Mrs. Shirley Williams) say as much earlier this afternoon. She said that there were certain features which worried the Opposition but that they held firm to democracy and to the ballot box for settling their dissatisfaction with the Government. I was delighted to hear that.
  The miners present us with a terrible dilemma. The first comment which must be made surely is that if the dispute should lead in the next few weeks to a great confrontation, as some miners have said and as some people believe, no one will win. Everyone will come out of it with a bloody nose. How will it help the nation to do its industrial job? How will it help our balance of payments, which some people think so
  728
  terrible and which certainly looks bad at the moment? How will it help anyone if there is a confrontation between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board—
  Mr. Richard Crossman: The Government.
  Mr. Fell: That is not strictly true. We know that some of the miners' union leaders have said that their real battle is with the Government and not with the National Coal Board. However, their negotiations have to be with the National Coal Board. I hope that enough common sense will prevail by Monday for them to come to some sort of arrangement.
  It would be extremely serious if the dispute deteriorated into any sort of confrontation between the Government and the miners, between public opinion and the miners or, for that matter, between public opinion and the Government. Confrontation will lead only to discomfort, and perhaps to disaster for the industrial life of the British people—and no one will escape it, not even the miners.
  I hope that the miners will see that there is a will in this House for them to be paid very considerably more than they are able to get, even under the latest suggested settlement, especially in view of the escalation of prices. Clearly they will eventually have to be paid considerably more. However, it must be made clear to them that it is not possible for this House to aid and abet the breaking of laws passed by Parliament.
  Mr. Ogden: Would not it be helpful if the Government themselves looked at the offer made by the National Coal Board to see whether the board may have overlooked a possibility which within the law of the land it might offer as part of a settlement, rather than simply saying, as the Minister has, that this is a matter between the National Coal Board and the miners? If the Government's interpretation of their own law will allow the board to make a better offer, that really will be helpful.
  Mr. Fell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby again is being helpful. It is my view that common sense has to prevail over the next few days. If it does not, the country may be in for a very thin time.

  729
  Let no one suppose that any political party is certain of gaining advantage from a failure to reach agreement over the next few days. This is completely uncertain. The only certainty is that somehow an agreement must be reached. If it were to be reached in some way—perhaps as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby suggested—that would be for the benefit of the British people and, in the long run, for the benefit of the coalminers.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: The Minister who is to wind up the debate has a rare treat in store for him. It does not often happen that a Minister rises to wind up a debate knowing that in the House there are open votes which he has in the palm of his hand and which lie is responsible for converting to the Government's point of view. By the time that the Minister gets to the Dispatch Box tonight there will be some open votes. At the moment my own vote is at his disposal—or not—depending on the argument he adduces and on his answers to certain questions. I hope that he will answer the specific questions that are put to him, some of which have been asked already and some of which were put to him in the debate earlier in the week and which he did not answer.
  This House has a responsibility to give any Government, of whatever political persuasion, emergency powers if the Government can show the House that they really need them. In view of that, my first question is whether these powers are really necessary. Taking the situation in its totality I have no doubt that a logical case can be made for the exercise of emergency powers. However, the Government have not made that case and they have refused to answer the debate in relation to the totality of the energy problem. It is to that that I wish to refer.
  I look first at the reasons which have been given us so far. I go back to the statement of the Home Secretary on 13th November when he said:
  "The Government consider that the present situations in the coal and electricity generating industries constitute a threat to the essentials of life of the community …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973: Vol. 864, c. 257.]
  730
  That was pretty clear, but on the same day in the other place Lord Windlesham said:
  "It seemed to us that it was the right action to take because of the coming together of three influences: the dispute, which has been going on for some time, with the power engineers; the new dispute with the coal miners, and the continuing uncertainty in the world oil situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lord's, 13th November 1973; Vol. 346, c. 588.]
  So far, this debate has been primarily about coal. We debated the miners' case for three hours earlier in the week. Even if the Government's action were related specifically to coal I have no doubt that they could make a case to the effect that it is far better to take action early than late, but we are not here to debate the merits of the miners' case; we have already done that.
  If the miners' union and the National Coal Board between them cannot find their way through the huge and multitudinous holes in stage 3 of the prices and incomes policy they must be either blind or wilfully and obstinately determined not to find a way. I suspect they can find their way out, because the productivity agreement is just there for the asking. It can be stretched and stretched, and it is virtually unbreakable.
  The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) put a specific question to the Minister, similar to the one that I asked him on Tuesday concerning the miners. I hope that today he may give a reply. The Minister understands market forces, I should have thought. May we have from him the Government's estimate of the effect that the present exodus of manpower from the coal mining industry will have on our total fuel situation? That is of the essence. How many miners do the Government think we need? How much do we need to pay to get them and to keep them?
  When the Minister wound up the debate on Tuesday all he said was that we had exceeded an exodus of 600 miners a week only in the week following the announcement of the overtime ban. That is not good enough. Clearly, we had been way over the 500 mark for some time before then. We are talking of an exodus from the industry of about 30,000 miners a year, against a total of 250,000 miners—which means an awful lot of people and an awful lot of lost coal production. We need to know the answer to this specific

  731
  question. The Government must have made some estimate. I cannot see why they cannot give an answer.
  Nor is the debate specifically about the electricity dispute. If the industrial action by the electricity industry is effective most hon. Members would agree that we shall at some time, if not immediately, need emergency powers with a vengeance. Presumably, that industrial action is intended to be effective, and therefore probably would bring about the necessity for emergency powers.
  It is not coal or electricity that is the basis of the Government's case. It is a fuel that they find exceedingly difficult to mention—oil. Oil is the essence of the whole matter. I draw the Minister's attention to a headline of today's article on the centre page of the Financial Times:
  "Energy, a gamble that has not come off."
  I shall not read the crucial bits because the Minister may well have had the article drawn to his attention. It is a gamble, always was a gamble, and clearly has not come off.
  Many of us warned the Government that it would not come off, but what have we been told about the oil position for weeks? We had the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry almost bragging about the amount of oil that the Government have managed to hoard, as though they had carried it into Britain in sacks. He said that there was plenty of oil at sea, and that there was no need for rationing. He pointed out that no other European country had rationing, except Holland which had banned Sunday motoring, and he said that we had better reserves than any other European country. Throughout that passage he was grotesquely complacent, in my view. When one tried to get from him and from the Prime Minister the basis of this marvellous optimism, all we had was the extraordinary response that the Government had received some assurances from certain unspecified sheikhs that the oil cuts were not intended to hurt Britain. That is very good of them; it is nice to know that they do not intend to hurt us; but I am at a loss to see how we can possibly avoid being affected. How could these cuts in oil production from the
  732
  major oil producing area of the world not hurt Britain? The cut back is considerable and is bound to be of a general nature.
  Now we know the situation. I quote from a different page of today's Financial Times: "Oil delivery cut expected soon". The report adds:
  "Despite the Government's concentration on electricity and coal supplies in its latest emergency measures, the oil industry in the United Kingdom seems generally convinced that it will have to act to curb oil demand within a week. Stocks in the country are already believed to have been reduced to around 70 days or less, while shipments at sea are thought to be 15–20 per cent. down on planned rates."
  Is that the truth of the matter? Did the Secretary of State get it all wrong? Why did he get it all wrong, if that is the case? Have the cuts been tougher than he was promised? Have the assurances proved no more than a piece of paper? What is it?
  In spite of what I now believe and what the industry believes—the Minister knows only too well what the industry believes—in spite of the crisis in the oil industry now in this country, which is far more dangerous for the nation's future than anything that has happened in the coal industry or the electricity industry over the past two weeks, the Government have brought before us no regulations specifically relating to the conservation of oil, the better or more equal distribution of oil or the rationing of oil.
  How short of oil are we in relation to our requirements this winter? The main article in the Financial Times to which I have already referred says that"
  "the United Kingdom industry now expects to be around 15 to 20 per cent. short of its winter supplies".
  Is that true? I do not know whether we shall have an answer tonight, but I hope that we do. It is time that the Government came clean on oil, and on the assurances which they had from the sheikhs and what they gave in return for those assurances.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party went to Hove during the by-election campaign and he warned the electors of Hove what the Government had paid for those assurances. There were Press reports at that time that the Government had made not only a host of

  733
  promises about not rearming Israel, sending spares and things of that sort but—possibly even more serious—had promised the sheikhs that they would not introduce oil rationing in this country because to do so would be to cut the ground from under the sheikhs' feet in their efforts to use the oil weapon against the friends of Israel. Those reports appeared in at least two of the more responsible newspapers at that time.
  If that assurance was given by the British Government, we know why these emergency powers have been introduced. The Government are using the miners' industrial action and the electricity workers industrial action not as a means of bashing the miners or bashing the electricity workers nor in order to produce a confrontation in industry but as an underground method of bringing in oil rationing without having to tell their friends in the Middle East that that is what they are doing.
  Will the Government come clean about that? Were those assurances given? Why have they not introduced the measures regarding oil which are clearly necessary and which were, indeed, necessary some time ago?
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), whose speeches I always enjoy, and who so often seems to me to be a shining exception to the basic rule of politics that the Liberals have no policy, I shall address myself at the outset not to what he said but to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), a colleague of mine from the city of Liverpool.
  In what I thought an interesting and helpful speech, the hon. Member for West Derby made several points with which I was not able entirely to agree, and now, if he will do me the courtesy of answering one or two questions, perhaps I shall be able to agree with him.
  The hon. Gentleman said that no one—I think I got it right—in the National Union of Mineworkers or on the miners' side of the dispute had ever said, or threatened that they wished to overthrow the Government in any way save through the ballot box. I am sure that it is within the recollection of all hon. Members here
  734
  and of many people in the country that the day before yesterday, I think it was, a miners' leader from Wales said that that was the intention and would be the effect of the overtime ban—to break the Government. The phrase was vivid, and it is within the recollection of us all.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) specifically refuted that statement by the miners' leader. She said that she did not agree with it and she did not condone it. I was delighted to hear it. But it was not quite accurate of the hon. Member for West Derby to say that nothing of the sort had been said, for we all remember that it was.
  Next, the hon. Gentleman said that all the miners wanted was a living wage. He said that several times. I suppose that definitions differ on the question of what is a living wage. What the miners are at present being offered is a 13 per cent. increase, and many hon. Members have said that under phase 3 this can be increased to 16 per cent. if the productivity provisions are invoked. That is a far bigger increase than anyone else is being offered. It is a far bigger increase than the increase in the cost of living.
  Is the hon. Member for West Derby saying, therefore, that the Wilberforce award to the miners, which was so strongly welcomed by the Opposition, and which has been mentioned with praise and approbation many times today, did not give a living wage? If he is not saying that, how can the present offer not give the miners a living wage today?
  Mr. Ogden: I do not want Liverpool to take over the House, good idea though that might be. All I am saying is that if the best offer now were accepted it would not put the miners back to where they were under Wilberforce. The hon. Gentleman can juggle his figures as much as he likes, but this offer does not bring us to Wilberforce. Indeed, in many cases, because it is a complicated industry, it will take us back to before Wilberforce. Would the hon. Gentleman recommend any of his children or any of his constituents to go down the pit for less than £29 a week, which is the rough average?
  Mr. Fortescue: That was not the point I was making. I was trying to clarify the hon. Gentleman's view about the relative position of the miners just after

  735
  Wilberforce compared with the new offer if accepted, and I am still not clear about it. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the temporary shorthand-typist on £40 a week, according to the advertisements. Perhaps it would not be kind to point out that the difference between the miner and the shorthand-typist is that the shorthand-typist has no union.
  I come now to another matter which has struck me during today's exchanges. The Government have announced regulations—I believe that they have made an order today, though I am not sure—regarding electric heating in schools and educational establishments. It is a bit of a mystery to me how that order will be enforced. Will there be a licensing system for electric heating in schools and educational establishments? Will it be enforced only in the public sector? What about the private sector? How will it be enforced there?
  As a corollary to that inquiry, I ask also about establishments which use night storage heaters. Surely, this is the most economical way of using electricity since it takes electricity in off-peak periods. It would be only common sense that the ban on heating in schools and educational establishments should be entirely lifted if they use night storage heaters. I shall gladly give way if the Minister will answer that now.
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think that it may be helpful if I respond to his question now. The Government had intended to issue licences to schools and educational establishments under article 3(1) of the order. However, in order to avoid the administrative burden of issuing such licences, and to clarify the position immediately, we have decided that a better course would be to exempt schools, colleges and other places of education from the scope of the order.
  We are, therefore, making an amending order deleting paragraph (1)(a) (vi) from article 3 of the present order, to come into effect from midnight tonight. This is an administrative improvement. We shall, of course, expect local education authorities to co-operate fully in the 10 per cent. cut in fuel consumption
  736
  generally, according to the instruction which was issued to them yesterday.
  My hon. Friend asked also about night storage heaters. Because of the tight margin between generating capacity and peak demand, which makes it desirable to even out the load throughout the 24 hours, the Government have decided by a further amendment to the order to allow the prohibition on space heating by electricity to be lifted between 0300 hours and 0730 hours daily.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to make that statement. They are administrative changes.
  Mr. Palmer: I am delighted that the Minister intervened as he did, because the orders as drafted, not as recently amended, exclude all electric heating of any kinds—including night storage and ordinary radiators. There have never been such absurd orders. All this was done without any consultation with the Electricity Council.
  Mr. Fortescue: I have no knowledge whether there was consultation, but I am delighted with what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said. It will go a long way to assure us that the orders will not be interpreted unreasonably.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The same civil servants who drew up the orders—and the amendment on the same day—are those who are accusing the miners. We would not get into these messes if we would only get suitable civil servants, or, better still. Ministers who would take responsibility and do their job.
  Mr. Fortescue: I am sorry that I gave way. It is not the custom of the House to attack civil servants, and I will not have any part in it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I said it was the Ministers responsible.
  Mr. Fortescue: I have no doubt that when most hon. Members go to their constituencies tomorrow they ill be asked many questions about this debate and about the emergency powers. I fear that most of us get into the habit, when in our constituencies, of seeing only our own supporters. I am conscious of this, for almost everyone I see in Liverpool seems to be a Conservative. I am sure that Opposition Members similarly find

  737
  that they mostly meet their supporters. We ought to try to see people of the opposite political persuasion, as well as our own supporters, and the people who are defined as floating voters. The floating voter will decide the outcome of the next General Election.
  If any of us had a discussion about the emergency powers with such a man, of independent nature and intelligence, the conversation would start by the Member of Parliament being asked why there was an emergency. He would explain that the miners had put in for a big pay claim, which had been turned down by the National Coal Board because it was outside the realms of phase 3, and that there was, therefore, deadlock. He would add that he hoped that it was not deadlock, but that it looked like deadlock, and that with the miners' dispute on top of the oil and electricity situation the Government felt that it was right to ask for emergency powers.
  The questioner would scratch his head and say: "Did not the miners have a big increase less than two years ago? Did they not have an increase larger than anyone else?" The MP would reply, "Yes, that is right", and if he was fair-minded he would say that many people thought that the miners deserved it. I am sure that few hon. Members present would disagree with that. Then the man with whom the MP was conversing would ask "Does that mean that any time anyone else gets a rise the miners get another rise because they feel that they should always be top of the league?" The MP would say "No, but the miners have a powerful union with strong views and the power to back those views with action."
  Then the interlocutor would scratch his head and ask "What about the House of Commons? How can it be that it can pass laws which can be defied by any group of men who think they ought to be paid more than the limit set by the House of Commons? What use are you lot? What use is our democracy if this can be done?"
  If there is much more talk of confrontation, of winning or losing, the emergency will not be of energy supplies but of democracy itself. If it is felt by any group of men who have their hands on the power switches of the
  738
  nation, whether in coal mining, electricity or any other key industry, that they can defy the will of the House of Commons because they can bring the country's industry to a standstill, we shall really have an emergency.
  I have been delighted with the way in which the debate has gone. Speaker after speaker has made much the same point. No one wants a confrontation. No one thinks that anyone can win or that anyone can lose. That we have a potential emergency of democracy is highlighted by the by-elections last week, when the trumpet gave forth a very uncertain sound for all the three main political parties. It was evident that the electorate did not particularly want to be governed by any of them. If that is so, if we are talking about the confrontations and about winning and losing, and if there is no attractive and acceptable alternative to the Government in power, once again our very democracy is in danger.
  I add my voice to those who have said today "We hope with all our hearts that the negotiations continuing between the National Coal Board and the NUM"—they will continue on Monday: they have not been broken off, but have been no more than adjourned—"will come to a successful conclusion."
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I intervene because I wish to make, at perhaps a little greater length, the point already made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) about the absurd situation that will result over electricity supplies for heating if the orders in front of us go through in their present form.
  But first I should like to say something about the Home Secretary's speech. The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for fairness, but it seemed to me that he wrongly blamed, by implication, two groups of employees for the emergency powers. He mentioned the miners. I shall not take up that reference, because in the House there are, think goodness, plenty of able and eloquent spokesmen for the mining community.
  The Home Secretary also, by implication, referred to the power engineers as blameworthy. I can say something about their position, with some knowledge. I

  739
  do not see how the Home Secretary can blame the power engineers for the present situation. They negotiated over 11 months ago with the Electricity Council, through a perfectly constitutional process of collective bargaining, an agreement for improved out-of-hours working payments. The Electricity Council was anxious to make the payments, which would normally have been made, but the Government by their policy compelled it to welch on the payments. Therefore, how can the power engineers be blamed, directly or indirectly, for a situation which has made necessary, it is said, a declaration of a state of emergency? May I say that the Electricity Council has decided in the past few days that, as it is in agreement with the Electrical Power Engineers' Association that the payments should be made, it is not prepared to go to the Pay Board without the association's agreement? That is a very proper attitude.
  The Home Secretary also seemed to say, with reference to the technical staffs in electricity supply and the mineworkers, that there must be respect for the law. I hope that he was not suggesting that the power engineers are in any way breaking the law in their present action. The law is not made by the will or thoughts of the Government; it is made by Parliament and interpreted by the courts—and no one else. One can never say how a court judgment will go, but the association has taken the highest legal opinion, and has been told that its action is four-square within the law.
  The position of the technical staffs is simple. They have a 24-hour responsibility for maintaining electricity supply. The technical staffs have no overtime payments, but it is traditional to have a payment for standing by and a payment for call-out. They accept that 24-hour responsibility, but have decided, as the Government do not now seem to value very highly a 24-hour continuity of electricity supply, that they—I speak as a member of the association, and declare my interest—who normally organise all the work that brings about that continuity of supply, will themselves decide the order of priorities in which work should be done. If they do not think that any emergency is involved, the work will be done in normal working
  740
  hours. What is being done is, in their judgment, entirely within the law. In the end it is not for the Government but for the courts to decide what is within the law.
  I come now briefly to the main point I wish to make, about the absurdity of the Electricity (Heating) (Restriction) Order—a most remarkable order. The Electricity Council was not consulted about its drafting. If I am wrong, in saying that, I should like to know which member of the council or official was consulted. I understand that the first some council members knew about it was when they read it in the evening newspapers.
  The order is an absurdity. Those in a commercial firm, school, office or public building who are unfortunate enough to have installed electric heating, whether night storage or the ordinary type of radiant bar "on-peak" heating, are not allowed to use it under the order. What will happen to them? Many thousands of offices, for instance, throughout the country are heated by electricity alone.
  When the order was drafted for the previous state of emergency, night storage heating was not included, but it is included now. Unless something is done, large numbers of office workers, apart from the children in schools, will be without any heat, just because they happened to choose electricity as the medium—a very commendable choice. Surely that is not the Government's intention. If it is not, how is it that an order so carelessly drafted is placed before the House?
  Why is there discrimination against the electricity supply industry? I should have thought that the case for rationing oil was as strong as the case for rationing electricity. Certainly we must not waste fuel anywhere if there is a crisis. Why should we not also conserve gas supplies? The correct way to deal with the problem would be to keep the three principal heating industries on a basis of equality. Then one would not secure a commercial advantage as against another.
  I stress once again that the order is discriminatory. It discriminates particularly against the electricity supply industry and I suspect that the Government have concentrated upon that industry in

  741
  this nonsensical fashion because electricity is still produced mainly by burning coal. The Government are mostly concerned about the coal stocks at the power stations. They have been built up since the last mining dispute to a record level but they will not last indefinitely. The Government are most anxious to conserve these stocks because they want a strong defence weapon in their hands if it comes to a battle with the mining community. Their anxiety to achieve this has led them into an absurd legislative situation over electricity supply control.
  The Minister for Industry will forgive me, I hope, if I say that he was placed in an unenviable position just now when, in the course of at useful speech by one of his hon. Friends, he had to make a special intervention about the electricity regulations immediately because every moment was passing and there was no time to be lost in giving an answer to the inquiries coming in about this unworkable order. It could not even wait for his reply later tonight. The Press had to know at once.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. William Clark: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). I would not entirely disagree with a lot of what he said. He put the case most reasonably. However, it must be realised that the public generally welcome the emergency powers that the Government have taken. This matter must be examined in the context of the entire energy situation.
  There is trouble in the Middle East, with the possibility of petrol and oil being rationed in Britain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will not keep industry in a sort of limbo for too long. There are many rumours and counter-rumours that rationing is to come next week, on 1st December or whenever. I hope that he will make a categoric statement about our oil supplies.
  It is no use saying that we do not have a crisis over oil. In my constituency, in Croydon, it is impossible to get oil for domestic central heating. Consequently, it does the Government no good to say that there is no immediate threat. Where a shortage affects people, particularly invalids, we should be told the facts. We should not put out confident statements. We are in an energy crisis. We can get
  742
  growth, but to do so we must maintain our energy. In the past the Government have possibly given the impression that they have done too little too late in some cases, particularly in industrial matters. Everyone agrees that inflation is the curse of prosperity and must be tackled resolutely. The snag arises with the remedy. Those who are affected by it say "Yes, take remedial action but do not let it affect me. It is the man next door who should be suffering."
  Stage 3 of the counter-inflation policy is fair and flexible. Wages may increase and prices are controlled. Profit margins are contained. It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh, but what a folly it would be to curtail only prices and profits and do nothing about wages and salaries.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is the hon. Member aware that he is accusing the Government of deceiving the nation? The Government have declared that there is several weeks' supply of oil in Britain and four weeks' supply on the sea, yet the hon. Member says that certain firms in Croydon cannot get oil. Where is the oil? Is it being held back by certain individuals waiting for the price to go up, or are the Government not carrying out their duty?
  Mr. Clark: I do not know where the oil is. That is why I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister for information. It is no use asking me, because I am asking the same question. If I have the support of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) I am delighted. At least there is some unanimity in the debate.
  Let us be pragmatic about it. Our economic base is fairly sound, and it is within our grasp to make the most of it. However, we shall not make the most of it unless somehow we stop the militancy in some trade unions. At the last General Election 28 million people voted. Fortunately 13 million of them voted Conservative, and the Conservatives accordingly came to power. The result could have gone the other way, and the future may see a change of Government. This is a democratically-elected Parliament. Of course, its policies are not popular with everyone, but the Government's counter-inflation policy has been democratically approved and it

  743
  is nonsensical for some militant trade unions to say, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the case, "This is war and we shall break the Government." They are not breaking the Government. They are breaking democracy, and they are breaking the public. After all, what are the Government? They only represent or try to represent the public I should have thought that some of these militants, particularly within the trade union movement, were doing a disservice to the ordinary working man. The militants are in a minority but they are vociferous, and they sometimes call people out on strike when if it were left to the workers they would not strike.
  Much has been said about the miners' last pay award. There is no mining industry in East Surrey. We do not have any pits, but I represented at one time a Nottingham seat where there was a coal mine. I have been down coal mines and I understand the dirty work involved and the impossible job the men have to do. Of course they should be paid a fair rate for the work, but we must get these things into perspective. If the miners were to take what the National Coal Board has recently offered it would mean they should have had an increase in earnings of about 40 per cent. in the last 20 months. Hon. Members might say that that is not good enough, but it is not bad.
  If they were to take this increase we could possibly ride out the oil shortage that we shall no doubt suffer. One of the things which make the overtime ban so short-sighted—I do not suggest it is illegal—is that some of the pits may be closed and may not reopen. Obviously that will create unemployment, and trade unionists must ask themselves whether some of their leaders are interested in the welfare of the members or whether they are playing politics. Do they want to get the Conservative Government out and a Labour Government in? If the Government are defeated on this issue the country too will be defeated. If a Labour Government were returned it would be stuck with the same problem. Some of the militants think they can break this Government and have a Labour Government which will then dance to their tune. I do not want to rub it in too much but the "In Place of
  744
  Strife" proposals and the prices and incomes policy that the Labour Government tried to introduce failed simply because of trade union pressure. The country must ask whether the militants, who are posing as the friends of the workers whilst pursuing policies as enemies of the State, have created unemployment because of their actions. If that is so, they cannot be helping the working man. We cannot run a democracy if the Government of the day are subjected to such blackmail.
  Mr. PalmerI have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest of attention. Which militants is he talking about? Who are these militants?
  Mr. Clark: I know that hon. Members are privileged, but I do not want to mention names. All that I have to do is to read the national Press to discover that a member of the National Union of Mineworkers said "This is war and we will not give way." That is not the way to run a democracy.
  The silent majority in the trade union movement has been silent for too long. We must alert the moderates within the trade union movement to the dangers which some of these militants are presenting to the country.
  It is incumbent upon the Opposition to say categorically—the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) was ambiguous—whether or not they are for maintaining the law. The Counter-Inflation Act 1973 has been passed, and we have the guidelines and flexibility of phase 3. Whether the Opposition like it or not, the law must be accepted. I accept that the Opposition may not like phase 3, but they should not in their speeches or by inference give trade unionists the impression that they are being asked to take no notice of the law because they consider that it is bad.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: If the hon. Gentleman consults HANSARD tomorrow he will find that I said in clear terms that we advise our people to respect the law and that we ask the Government to ask their people to do so.
  Mr. Clark: That is fair enough. The hon. Lady knows that this is not a personal issue. I did not think that she was as categoric as she has made out.

  745
  We are in this together. It is not one side and the other side. It is essential that the miners and the electricity workers, or any other group of workers—I know they probably want their money so as to increase their standard of living—help to establish some sort of rapport between the TUC, the CBI and the Government. If that does not happen, I am afraid that the British economy is doomed.
  Mr. Harold Walker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at tonight's Evening News he will see a report from the Kent coalfields. One of the mine workers, a Mr. Hawkins, who is a married man with children, is reported as saying that at the end of each week he goes home with £22. The hon. Gentleman is a wealthy company director. I do not hold that against him. I have a high regard for him. When he says that we are in this together, is he asking that man who is earning £22 a week to establish a rapport with him? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether in the last 12 months the growth in his income has been within the requirements of the Government's income policy?
  Mr. Clark: I think that it is offensive to ask about another Member's personal circumstances. [Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I have not had an increase in my salary during the past 12 months. I do not think that it is necessary for me to have to make that declaration. Why should I? I am not suggesting that the miners should not get an increase. I accept that £22 a week is a low and perhaps a derisory wage, but I should like to know how much that man could be earning under the National Coal Board's new offer. Of course, it is possible to take any individual case and make the situation look black. If we take the average of the miners' wages during the past 20 months, and if the National Coal Board's offer is accepted, the miners will have an increase of 40 per cent.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  Mr. Clark: I am delighted that the Government have introduced these emergency powers. I hope that it will not be necessary to use them. However, it is the Government's duty to protect the public, and the Government can do so in emergency only by introducing emergency powers.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Brynmor John: I have taken part in two debates in quick succession in which I have heard Conservative Members appeal to patriotism. If the Conservative Party is in trouble it appeals to patriotism.
  There is an inevitable result in the event of a crisis—namely, that which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) pointed out. Those who start a crisis at the top of the heap somehow always come out at the end at the top. All the talk about being in one boat together is just so much eyewash. I remember the currency crisis in 1967. Was the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark) tendering the same advice then to his City friends who were selling Britain short by speculating on sterling? Of course he was not. At that time they were great patriots who were exposing the weakness of the country. That shows the hypocritical nature of the Conservative Party's appeals to patriotism.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that I personally sent to every Minister, including the Prime Minister, and the Pay Board dozens of company reports certified by chartered accountants which show that company directors during phase 1 and phase 2 have been giving themselves salary increases of thousands of pounds a year? Those increases have not been granted on any productivity basis. The Prime Minister and the Pay Board have refused point blank to take any action. I have a letter in my pocket from the Prime Minister bearing today's date. The Prime Minister refuses to take any action.
  Mr. John: Of course, even in the present so-called phase of the Government's incomes policy, directors have the ability to avoid in certain ways the rigidities of the Government's policy. Miners cannot do so.
  There have been a number of states of emergency during the past three years. When a state of emergency becomes commonplace the Government are allowing themselves little room for manoeuvre when a major crisis blows up. The Government, by making an emergency declaration, have left themselves with little room for manoeuvre. The Government are

  747
  in the grave danger that the public will no longer believe them.
  Much of the debate has rightly centred upon the overtime ban which is being operated in the coal industry. It is not a ban which has been imposed suddenly. It is a ban which was talked about through the spring and autumn. I have been reading reports in the newspapers of the Government's fear that in the autumn there would be an overtime ban in the coal industry. The Government knew perfectly well that the miners might be dissatisfied with the terms of a pay settlement which they might be offered.
  At the same time, coal stocks have never been so high. Apparently the Government and the nationalised industries learned the lesson of the last miners' strike. Not only are coal stocks at the pitheads very high, but coal stocks at the electricity generating stations have been similarly high. In fact, they have been at their highest level. Is that so? Have the stocks at the electricity stations been at their highest level? If not, does not that make the Government seem guilty of the grossest negligence in the handling of the country's affairs?
  The overtime ban is the banning of extra hours which are not part of the normal week's work. The week's work, I hasten to add for the information of those advocates of law and order, is something which was first enshrined in an Act of Parliament and which has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Apparently, after one day of an overtime ban—that is, the banning of non-compulsory extra work—we are in such a desperate situation that we have to declare a state of emergency. Either the industrial base is so enfeebled as to be blown away by the first wind, or else this declaration of a state of emergency owes everything to political considerations and almost nothing to economic imperatives.
  We have been given today pictures, with more or less heartrending sobs, by Conservative Members about the hardship this situation will cause ordinary people—as though miners do not live among ordinary people, as though miners do not have a high proportion of their own who are sick and disabled, as though the miners do not see their own com-
  748
  munities progressively getting older, and as though, with all this, the miners do not realise full well that there is hardship to the community.
  The Government cannot escape this matter as lightly as they seek to do. The miners are leaving the industry at the rate of 600 a week. In South Wales, the rate is about 100 a week. The net loss of miners to the industry in the last two years has been 26,200. That is the number of fewer miners now than there were two years ago in the pits.
  The Government are now in a dilemma. They cannot rely on immigrant workers to do the dirty jobs; nor can they rely on direction of labour to do them. So how are they to ensure that there will be a satisfactory work force to carry out a job which by any reckoning is dirty, hazardous and carried out in the most unpalatable conditions? Many hon. Members opposite have said that they would not like to do it, and they are not alone in that. If a miner can go to a factory which is modern, clean and well lit, with reasonable conditions and for much higher wages, he also does not want to work down a mine, and no earthly power can compel him to do so.
  The Government, unless they have a more flexible policy than they have yet revealed to justify their claim to be tackling long-term problems of ensuring our fuel stocks, can pursue either a policy which brings about the recognition of the miners' just claim to be placed high among the industrial workers, or one which may defeat the miners and increase the progressive exodus of miners from the industry till, at the end of the day, there will not be enough miners to provide the coal needed by the community. It is right and proper that the National Coal Board should seek now to obtain justice in wages for the miners.
  The attendance of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been fleeting today. Indeed, he is rather like a typhoon. He makes rare appearances for brief periods and leaves havoc in his train. That has been his mark as Secretary of State. He is much more ready to go on television than to grace this House. Last night on television he was remarkably unclear about our oil and petrol stocks and what the future holds.

  749
  If the Government really believed that what they said today about oil being a very great component of the present crisis, the first and not the last task they should have undertaken was the rationing of petrol and oil. That should have been done several weeks ago. The Government cannot postpone it till the never-never. Last weekend on the radio the Secretary of State said that it was no good being dramatic like Holland in restricting Sunday driving. He added that everything was all right because we had an accommodation with the Arabs, who regarded us as a friendly Power. If that is so, what has so dramatically changed in the oil situation? If oil supply is the major—and I believe the only—reason for the declaration of a state of emergency, would it not have been honest and prudent of the Government to have said so and, equally, to have confessed that they blundered in not imposing petrol rationing before now?
  Let not those who have abdicated Britain's independence in foreign policy in pursuit of the maintenance of oil supplies be under any illusion that their action has bought time and supplies. The Home Secretary quoted The Times with approval. Perhaps he will equally accept a report in The Guardian yesterday. It reported Mr. Jalloud, the Libyan spokesman, as saying:
  "It is no good Europe thinking we are going to turn back on oil. The Arab countries are going to continue to cut oil until the Western countries supply them with modern destructive weapons."
  The Government are, therefore, faced with an accelerating crisis. They have chosen for political reasons to pretend that it is the miners' strike that has caused the situation. The political bias of the whole approach is evident in the statutory instruments. Why at this stage is it necessary to treat schools on an equal basis with museums and art galleries—if it is not to try to arouse prejudice amongst mothers whose children will be denied education? Why should that be done at this time?
  The issue really is the ineptitude of the Government in their handling of economic policy. It is that which has caused the problem. If they had had a sensible economic policy instead of the absurd rigidities of stages 1, 2 and 3 we would not have had to face the shortfall of 26,000 miners in two years. It is no
  750
  good the Government suggesting that if the strike goes on we may have to close mines. Even if it does not go on, but if the miners continue to leave at the present rate, then coal mines which are viable and have good reserves of coal will have to close anyway because the men will simply not be available. The men are going to other industries, where they are better paid.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I hesitate to intervene, but my hon. Friend will be saddened tomorrow morning to read in HANSARD that he used the word "strike". I am sure that he would like to correct that impression in case someone comes back to him.
  Mr. John: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was, I think, repeating a misquotation of the hon. Member for Surrey, East. It is, of course, an overtime ban.
  As I was saying, at the present rate of wastage many coal mines will close anyway. The only way in which the Government can repair the situation is to reintroduce sensible flexibility and recognise the justice of the miners' claim. Unless they do that they risk the economic and financial suicide of the country which their recent prodigality towards the rich has already put them well on the way to seeing.
  These emergency regulations are the product of political prejudice, of the Government's desire to extricate themselves from the financial and economic crisis into which they have blundered at the expense of the miners. They are hoping for a run to the country, but, as happened last time, they are going to be unpleasantly surprised, because our people will not forget the miners' sacrifices for them, and they will be ready to sacrifice for the miners.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. David Madel: I cannot claim the specialised knowledge of the coal industry displayed by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). He was right to underline again the importance of coal in the general fuel situation which we now face. As he and others have pointed out, the debate is not so much about the emergency powers but about the perilous fuel situation of the country, especially with oil supplies, following the recent Middle East war.

  751
  Naturally, from the point of view of the car manufacturing industry, I hope that we can avoid petrol rationing. It is all very well for people who may be well off and living quietly in the country to say that they can do without a car. For a large number of people a car is an absolute essential. It is vital that we get car production above the present 1973 level.
  I suspect that the reason why the Government have not introduced petrol rationing is partly that they hoped that the assurances given by the Arab States would be met and also because if we are to have petrol rationing it will have to be a much more sophisticated scheme than that which operated in 1956. We have only to look at the decline in rural bus services and railways to realise that 60 miles across the board a week is not necessarily the right way to tackle the problem. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will look at the question of motor racing and sports involving the use of oil.
  I would have thought that some adjustments could be made there. We should consider whether the amount of motor racing and sport involving oil should continue at the present rate. Petrol rationing, apart from the incomvenience, would have an effect on the car and truck industry that cannot be lightly disregarded.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) spoke of the electricity heating restriction order and went into considerable detail. I do not think that we were all able to grasp the full extent of the amendment order which the Minister said would be issued at midnight. I do not know whether I heard the Minister correctly when he spoke about heating for offices and the use of night storage heaters. I think he said that it would be all right to heat offices by night storage heaters if the heater came on between the hours of 3 a.m. and 7 a.m.
  Mr. Boardman: The hours I gave were between 30 minutes after midnight until 7.30 a.m.
  Mr. Madel: I am grateful. I would also like the Minister to look at another point. There are a number of somewhat antiquated offices. There are also a number of elderly people who work
  752
  in them part time. The order says that it is possible to get a licence revoking this ban on office heating. People will want to know how to get such licences. It will be especially difficult for the Government at present because there has been in the past few days—and it may not be fully solved—a dispute among local newspapers, which means that advertising to tell people how to get this kind of licence cannot be easy. I suggest that the Government will have to take quite a bit of time on radio and television to explain exactly how to set about getting a licence and to re-explain and re-emphasise the whole question of night storage heaters and office heating generally.
  I come now to the engineering dispute and the Pay Board. I would have thought that in stage 3, when difficulties arose between the power engineers and the Electricity Council, it was the duty of the Pay Board to convene a meeting between the Electricity Council, itself and the engineers and to spell out exactly what was available under stage 3.
  Now that we have a more flexible incomes policy the Pay Board could discard its former rôle of rigidly applying the rules and be more of a national incomes commission, such as was tried 10 or 12 years ago. If the Government are saying that there is flexibility under stage 3, the public want to know the range of possibilities and opportunities for people when they get involved in a dispute such as that currently involving the power engineers.
  Naturally we hope that the negotiations will be successful. If people have to put up with power cuts and voltage reductions they have a right to know exactly what can be given to the power engineers under phase 3. I hope that the Minister can say something about this.
  All I wish to say about the current dispute in the coal mining industry is that I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was right to say that the claim would have to be considered in the totality of the energy situation and in the light of the numbers leaving the industry at the present alarming rate. The country has to consider which is more damaging—a cut-off of coal, stopping factories from

  753
  working at full production, or a big stretch of phase 3 under a productivity deal and thereby the free flow of goods from the factories. We are now engaged in increased activity in our factories. A cut-back or stoppage would have far more serious consequences than the immediate effects on the coalmining industry and domestic electricity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry mentioned the media and the engaging of public opinion in disputes. What is going so wrong in this country is that there is so much publicity given to disputes and so little given to the solving of them. There have been occasions in the past two or three months when people have been involved in a dispute with an employer and when a mass meeting has rejected a recommendation that the strike should continue, or has recommended that the employer's offer be accepted. What is happening is that national and business nerve is being weakened by the constant publicity about the disputes occurring in the country.
  Many industries have gone through 1973 quite peacefully. Some have had difficulties, but in such cases the dispute has often been quickly solved by the various methods open to the industry. Often, that means negotiations behind locked doors. Investment and business confidence has been weakened in the past three months by the incessant publicity given to industrial disputes.
  This brings me back to the Pay Board and to two tasks which it should now undertake. First, the country wants to know the actual amount of overtime being worked and the cost to the country. Secondly, the country could do with knowing more about the normal hours of work in specific industries. I have always thought that before we consider a wage or salary claim, among the first questions to be asked by the public are: what hours are being worked in this industry? Are they long hours? What sort of shift work is being done? It is this information which the Pay Board has to get across to the country if phase 3 is to be successful.
  Naturally, I hope that the current economic expansion will continue, for two obvious reasons. First, it is the economic expansion of the past 15 months which has brought unemployment down
  754
  so quickly. Secondly, we have had an upturn in investment this year and promises of a further increase in investment for 1974. Any weakening of economic expansion is bound to put that at risk.
  I return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry said at the end of his speech. He warned us all that we should think more about what Mr. Baldwin did years ago and the social awareness that occurred at that time. Perhaps I could add a rider and say that it is incumbent upon the House and the country to remember that when people say that such and such a dispute will be a fight to the finish, then, as Mr. Harold Macmillan said, a fight to the finish can finish the country. Everyone must choose his words wisely and cautiously. Otherwise we will have a winter of most serious disputes.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). I am glad that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I was coming to the conclusion that no other Conservative Member would be prepared to support the sane arguments advanced in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I want to speak not because I represent the stockbroker belt, which has already been heard, but because I probably have more miners and more pits in my constituency than has any other hon. Member. I probably have more miners in my constituency than there are in all the constituencies represented by Conservative Members.
  I want to try to dispel from the minds of hon. Gentlemen the idea that the miners are like black-visaged thugs who are led by militants seeking to destroy the economy and the social values of this country. This is not the case. There are militants in the mining industry, and more than there were in 1970 because this militancy has been copiously fed by the policies pursued by the Government. Hon. Gentlemen talk about publicity being given to industrial disputes and suggest that this encourages a greater level of disputation and strike in industry. That is the case. They forget to mention that throughout the 1960s the Conservative Party was busy trying to get as much publicity and, therefore, political

  755
  capital as it could out of every dispute that occurred in Britain. Thus, relationships in industry were badly affected.
  The Government appear largely to have ignored the serious aspect, referred to by my hon. Friends, of drift from the National Coal Board's employ. This question arose on several occasions in the debate on Tuesday. Unfortunately, the Minister did not refer to it when he answered the debate. It was an astonishing omission. Hundreds of men are leaving the mining industry every week, yet the Minister completely ignored that point which had been stressed many times by hon. Members.
  I have talked to miners who have left and others who are thinking of leaving the industry. They are doing so for three reasons. The first is pressure from their families as a result of the tragic disasters which have been experienced this year. The second is that there is still not enough confidence in the future of the industry.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) suggest that we ought to have greater involvement in private enterprise and that there should be more open-cast mining. I do not want massive open-cast mining in my constituency, largely because much of it has been open-cast already, and, although we have not had the appalling legacy of open-cast in America, it is not so good, particularly when we have adequate good quality reserves underground.
  If we are to get the coal from beneath the surface we must persuade the men that they can expect reasonable rewards and long-term employment. Unfortunately, they have been severely disappointed in the last two or three years.
  I have never been in favour of entry into the Common Market on the unsatisfactory terms which were negotiated and arrived at after British miners were led to believe that entry would immediately open unto them 25 million of tons of coal sales in Europe each year. They were told that Europe, which had to import 20 million or 25 million tons of coal each year, would be eager to buy British coal and that, as a result of entry, 40,000 jobs would immediately be safeguarded and many pits would have a longer life.
  756
  Of course, not one extra ton of coal has been sold to Europe because we entered the Common Market. Indeed, there is no evidence that one extra ton of coal will be told to Europe in the next two or three years, even though Germany is reducing its productive capacity to 83 million tons next year.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps I may recall to my hon. Friend's mind that when the great debate was on, prior to entry, and all these inducements were dangled before the eyes and noses of the British people, we were told that one of the beneficial consequences of entry would be that our workers would start to get the better wages, conditions and lengthier holidays enjoyed by European workers. I went down a German coal mine in August. I may have been down a coal mine more recently than some of my hon. Friends from the mining industry. I learned that coal miners in Germany earn an average wage of £45 for a standard working week. Would my hon. Friend care to estimate when British coal miners will cash in on the benefits of entry into the EEC and receive the level of wages obtained in the Community?
  Mr. Hardy: There may in future be a willingness by the Common Market countries to purchase British coal. They certainly have to import increasing quantities of coal now that the Germans have aped the rest of the Community in running down their solid fuel industry. But so far we have seen no evidence of the economic benefits which were promised to the coalmining industry in 1971. Since that promise appears to have been broken the miners feel a greater lack of confidence than perhaps they should. I believe that the industry must remain in a healthy and viable condition for many years. However, unless the miners have greater confidence than they currently experience we shall not be able to maintain the industry.
  I have not been down a German coal mine, but in the last month or two I have spent days down two coal mines in my constituency. Both pits have large reserves of good quality coking coal and a tradition of excellent labour relations. Yet they are experiencing serious difficulties in retaining the younger men in their employ. The average age at those pits is about 48. Inevitably, this means

  757
  that future absenteeism, and so on, will be worse than it is today.
  The younger men are not going into the pits because they have not the confidence, because of the disasters which we have recently experienced, and because they are professionals. They do not go down the pits because their fathers did—therwise I should be working down a pit—or because they have nothing else to do. Increased mobility allows them to pursue jobs in areas 10 or 20 miles away from mining villages. They go down the pits for money. Unless the money they are offered is at least the same as they can get in other occupations we shall continue to lack miners for a very long time. Men are leaving the pits to go into private-sector occupations for more money.
  Hon. Members on the Government benches suggest that miners should abide by the law. But private-sector employers who offer them more money are not abiding by the law. On 26th August, on the front page of the Business News section of the Sunday Times, I read a report of increased wages being offered to building workers in the London area. Huge sums were being offered over and above the £1 plus 4 per cent. which was offered to workers generally. We may not find employers offering £40 or £50 a week extra in areas adjacent to the coalfields, but some employers in South Yorkshire and other areas near and within the coalfields are paying much above what the law allows to be paid. The Government have taken no action against such people.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or even condemned them.
  Mr. Hardy: I doubt whether they will condemn them. I wrote to the Prime Minister on this subject at the end of August and referred to this information, as well as to several other problems, including housing, affecting my constituency. Various answers were given about the housing problems, but that report was not referred to in the reply. If the developers of luxury office blocks can ignore the law and the national need, miners in my constituency and elsewhere will not moderate their demands. They will not, because they are in the public sector, accept less than people in other and perhaps not so necessary occupations.
  758
  I believe that we must maintain an adequate coal industry, and unless we are prepared to pay people at the going rate to work in that industry we shall certainly not be acting very wisely.
  Unfortunately, the Government have acted insensitively in introducing this emergency legislation within 24 hours of the miners' overtime ban commencing. It seems to me and it will seem to many in the mining industry and the mining communities—the two should be put together—that the Government are playing party politics with this issue in a way which is more serious than the suggestion that some miners' leaders would like to see the Government destroyed 7 he Government are seeking to establish a smokescreen, a cover-up, an excuse, because of the international energy crisis and their own serious economic situation.
  The miners will not be prepared to accept the full responsibility for the Government's economic failures. If the Government are relying on whipping up hatred, detestation and unpleasant public reaction to the miners and the mining communities, they will be responsible for the generation of a greater degree of bitterness than that which was general in the mining areas in my earlier years.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: 1926.
  Mr. Hardy: We do not want the kind of social reactions that were generated in 1926. I was beginning to be happy that the slight bitterness that we experienced in 1971, as a result of the last dispute, was rapidly being removed. If the Government persist in looking for trouble a greater degree of bitterness will prevail, and unpleasant publicity will not have very much effect upon it.
  I urge the Government to adopt a different posture from that which they appear to have taken up. It would not be wise for the Government to act like punch-drunk pugilists and throw their hat into the ring for a fight because they think that they can smell an easy victory. There are no victories to be won in this sort of dispute. If, instead of antagonism, there were a spirit of wise conciliation, we should not merely help Britain to weather her general economic problems. We should make a real contribution towards establishing that pattern of energy use and provision which it would be wise to adopt.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). The hon. Gentleman, in the earlier part of his speech, spoke with greater practical knowledge than I have of the problems in the mining industry. The debate is concerned with wider issues than the mining industry, but we all recognise the real problems which are related not only to the present dispute in that industry but to the future from the point of view of maintaining employment and coping with the energy problem that will be with us for ever.
  I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he found it necessary to allege that my right hon. Friend had all sorts of motives for bringing in these measures. I know these allegations to be untrue, and I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House do not support the suggestion that this is an effort to build the whole issue into one of confrontation and to encourage bitterness and hatred.
  It is clear to all who consider these problems seriously that not only this country but many others are facing acute problems and real crises of adjustment to the situation which has suddenly arisen. The purpose of these measures is not to build up hatred or fears of confrontation, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  I criticise the hon. Gentleman, just as I tried to criticise the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), for confusing the two issues here. It is important to separate them. We debated the mining industry on Tuesday, and we are to debate the Government's handling of the economic situation on Monday on a motion of censure. Today we are debating the need for the state of emergency which has been announced.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin said that on the announcement of the state of emergency the bottom fell out of the Stock Exchange. The reason for that was the balance of payments figures and the announcement of the increased interest rates and higher deposits. It had nothing to do with the declaration of the state of emergency.
  The hon. Lady made a strange comment, and perhaps it was unintentional. She said that the Opposition were not so interested in industrial investment.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams indicated dissent.
  Mr. King: If the hon. Lady reads HANSARD tomorrow she will see that that is what she said, but I cannot imagine that she meant it. When she was talking about restrictions on heating she alleged that the Conservatives were more interested in industrial investment, but this is a subject which concerns us all.
  The hon. Lady went on to say—and here I agree with her—that there is a need for integrity if we are to have a belief in parliamentary democracy. She said that there must be integrity in government. I am sure she would accept that there must be integrity in opposition, too. I thought that the hon. Lady, having made that reasonable appeal, departed somewhat from the standard that she had set herself because, if I understand her aright, she said that she agreed with the need for a state of emergency but would not support these measures because she did not happen to like the grounds on which the Government had introduced them.
  Is that really the way to create faith in democracy and in leaders in this country? If the hon. Lady recognises the need for measures to be taken in the national interest but says that she will recommend her right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them because she does not particularly like the way in which the Government have introduced them, that will not enhance public belief in the integrity of the Opposition at this critical time.
  I fully support the declaration of a state of emergency. That should be no surprise to anyone. My criticism is not that it was announced 24 hours after the overtime ban by the miners. During the debate on the economy on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech I said it was high time that precautionary measures were taken to meet the situation that was confronting us. We all recognise the fuel problems confronting us, and during that debate I said that we as a country resembled the "Titanic" sailing through dangerous waters with all its lights blazing.
  Mr. Skinner: "Morning Cloud".
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman mentioned integrity. Can he tell the House why the Government waited until Tuesday before making their announcement?
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: They could not do it before The by-elections.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) hear that honest reply?
  Mr. King: If I understood the tone of the opening speeches and the interventions—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) intervened, and I was helping the House by saying that he had given an honest reply. The hon. Gentleman said that these measures could not be announced before the by-elections, otherwise the Government would lose them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That is not a point of order. I am sure the hon. Member thought he was helping the House, but I do not think the House always agrees that he is.
  Mr. King: The whole tenor of the Opposition's case this afternoon is not that these measures have been taken too late, but that they have been taken too early. I fail to see how the hon. Member for Rother Valley can justifiably ask why we did not take these measures earlier, when the main criticism is that these measures were taken only 24 hours after the ban. The hon. Lady said that this step was taken too soon. She said that it usually takes longer to declare a state of emergency, yet the hon. Gentleman says that it should have been declared sooner.
  I am on record as saying a week ago that these measures should be taken. Had they been, the Government's standing would have been enhanced. We know that there is a problem, but we do not know very much about it. We know that the oil situation is uncertain. We may know what is on the high seas, but who can put his hand on his heart and say what will be shipped in a week or a fortnight's time? If there is a hitch over the exchange of prisoners of war or over the negotiations, the situation could change.
  I welcome the measures that have been taken, but I think that we must go further. I called for reductions in unnecessary lighting, and measures have
  762
  been taken on that score. I think that the hon. Lady had a fair point when she asked why these measures were confined to the use of electricity. I hope that that was an appeal to the country to join in the measures of economy that are needed. It was perhaps an oblique criticism of my right hon. Friend for the limited form of his measures. I hope, therefore, that in winding up the debate the Opposition spokesman will endorse loud and clear the call made by my right hon. Friend for every possible economy in the use of fuel.
  One wonders whether we are serious. I have referred to the waste of power in lighting. I notice that the Americans have now introduced heating regulations, in which it is suggested that they turn down their thermostats from the standard 76º at which offices are kept in the United States to a lower figure. It might do certain of our transatlantic friends a lot of good if that were to be a permanent measure.
  A wider point arises in the debate. At the beginning of my remarks I said that this problem will be with us for ever, from now on. Perhaps we can learn from the short term what measures might be of some sense for the future. The figures for motor cars on the roads have been quoted. I think I am right in saying that when petrol rationing last existed in this country, in 1956, there were 4 million cars on our roads. There are now 12 million. I was in Japan recently when the Japanese motor industry was celebrating record production figures for a particular month of half a million cars. We cannot carry on like this and expect that fuel supplies will be everlasting. Last month Detroit announced the new season's models, for 1974, one of which averages seven miles per gallon.
  Are we moving to this crazy situation when the whole world knows that fuel supplies are limited? Is no attempt being made to stop this? Is this not a time for a constructive step for the future and for looking again at the proposal for a horsepower tax, the proposal that the road fund licence should be adjustable and scaled to the horsepower of the car? Is not that a positive, constructive fuel economy move to give real inducement to the use of cars with a lower petrol consumption?

  763
  A meeting was held today to discuss the increased use and development of nuclear power. It seems that it is an ill wind that we face at present. It could not be much else in regard to fuel supplies. I hope that, in taking these emergency powers and in attempting to make short-term economies, we also look to the longer term to see what positive permanent measures can be taken to reduce fuel consumption. One thing we all know is that fuel will not be easy to come by. We also know that it will be very difficult to pay for it from now on, for ever.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall try to see that my hon. Friends are left time in which to be called to speak. I do not intend to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) because about the only issue on which I agreed with him was that the energy problem will be with us almost for ever.
  I should like to return to the speech made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) who addressed the House with his usual clarity and logic. I was glad that the hon. Member related the issue of the state of emergency specifically to the prices and incomes policy and the code. I think that he was the first speaker in the debate to do that. He also referred to the loss of miners.
  I do not know what the Government intend finally to do. If we are losing miners at present to the tune of 600 a week—we do not have a breakdown of the age levels in the pits, and that is equally important since we may find that the net loss of miners relates to very early age levels—and if the dispute escalates from an overtime ban into a strike, as it may do, there will inevitably be a further run-down of manpower in the mining industry. Who, then, is to dig the coal? It certainly will not be stockbrokers, or builders and land speculators. The Government must face up to the need to anticipate a situation that will arise after this dispute is settled.
  The problem of oil supplies has been referred to. If the oil situation was the determining factor, I do not believe that we would have a state of emergency, but if that was so, surely the Government would have taken action in those sectors
  764
  of the economy which are at present using oil. They would not have made pious pleas to turn off power at given times. They would have said, "We are in an energy crisis in which oil is vital. There must be a substantial restriction on the use of oil."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary referred to the power workers. They have a part in the total energy crisis which we face, but I do not believe that they are a significant factor in the introduction of the emergency powers. The real problem is the miners.
  No one can justify the introduction of a state of emergency only one day after the banning of overtime by the miners. I do not believe that, in practice, even with total banning of overtime, anyone can justify the introduction of a state of emergency, for if a man is not able to do that which he wills with his own spare time, we really are quickly developing into a slave State.
  The truth is that the Tories decided to take on the miners many months ago. They see the miners as the key to the success or failure of their incomes policy. If the miners win this dispute, phase 3 is dead. If the miners lose, it means that not only are the miners beaten but the whole of the trade union movement is beaten. It means that those of us in the trade union movement must face the fact that standards of living will again fall. Let us make no mistake. Even a 13 per cent. increase in wages, with a running 10 per cent. inflation, or more, and the consequential increase in tax payements arising out of the 13 per cent. increase, in totality is a decrease in wages after one has received the 13 per cent. In some cases it is a substantial decrease, due to the many benefits which are based upon the means test.
  The Government's plan to defeat the miners was laid, I think, in January and February 1972. Why have we had, even in this debate, so many references to the vast accumulation of coal stocks, not merely at the pitheads but at the power stations and distribution centres? The Government have admitted that they have a mobile police force which is ready to be moved in wherever trouble can be provoked on the picket lines. The emergency powers will be ready for them, to bring in the troops as soon as anyone blacks the movement of coal. My view

  765
  is that the Government have created a machine, since January 1972, to smash the unions, or to smash the miners and in consequence the unions, and that that machine is ready for the word "Go" I tell the Government tonight that the trade union movement will not stand idly by and see the miners on this occasion whipped again, because the whole situation is far too reminiscent of 1926.
  The Government have a serious economic crisis on their hands. I will not go into the balance of payments problems. The Government have even had to do a bit of fiddling, but it has now been determined that last month the deficit instead of being £298 million, was £370 million. The Government know the score. I do not think that they will be too disturbed if they get substantial industrial strife in the next few months, because I believe that they recognise that their disastrous economic policies have been such that it is impossible for them to recover, and that they may want to fight an election, which may come far sooner than some of us think, on the slogan, "Who is to govern, the people or the unions?"
  The Government will come to this if they can. They first trigger off industrial disputes. They produce a situation in which people must fight for the maintenance of their standard of living. Then the Government will go to the country and say, "The unions are holding the country to ransom"—not Sir John Stratton or some of the other boys who have been dipping their hands into large sums of money for a long period, some of the boys about whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has written to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions.
  My case is that as industrial strife is bound to occur the Government will go to the country. We must tell the people that the problems are the making of the Tory Party and that if the Tory Party is returned to power the problems will be still there and the policies will be the same. What we have seen, and what we are seeing now, is the unacceptable face of capitalism. It should be swept away.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is
  766
  totally wrong about the Tory Party's attitude to trade unions. I am a believer in the freest possible market economy and accept that trade unions are an essential part of that economy. I go further and say that I do not see the use of monopoly power such as the unions have been making use of in the last few years. One day the Labour Party will have to cope with that, if it ever gets into power again.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) seemed to think it politically meaningful to mention luxury offices. Not long ago Opposition Members were talking about workers who had to work in slum offices. The hon. Gentleman should seek to improve his political memory.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: To be fair to my hon. Friend for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who has had to leave the Chamber, his point was that it is ludicrous and unfair to pay the workers building those offices double what the miners get, because obviously the miners will leave mining and go to the better job at double the salary.
  Mr. Proudfoot: I do not disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman will see as I proceed that I accept some of what he has said.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley said also that as miners got older—he mentioned the 48-year-olds—they had a greater degree of absenteeism. I would not use that word in this context—and I know many men in the mining community.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have moved rapidly in declaring this state of emergency. Nobody likes to declare a state of emergency. Again, I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West. I do not think that there is any deep-laid plot to seek head-on confrontation with the miners or anybody else. The hon. Gentleman said that plans were drawn up two years ago. The Government were severely criticised at that time for not having sufficient plans to deal with the miners' strike. Obviously the Government have more experience in dealing with these things and will be much better prepared than they were the last time. I would not call that a plot. It is just using experience.

  767
  The Government called this state of emergency at exactly the right time—while tempers were cool. To have waited until tempers were frayed before introducing a state of emergency would have been like throwing petrol on to a fire. It is as well that it was done now.
  When I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill introducing stage 2 of the prices and incomes policy I enjoyed myself immensely. It was the most instructive Committee I have ever served on. The instruction continues as long as we have stages of the prices and incomes policy. I believe that stage 3 would never have been necessary if world prices had not gone against us, and we would have returned to our belief in the free market economy.
  It is glorious sitting here and hearing one Opposition Member after another using the argument of the Selsdon man. Time after time we hear pleas for a free market economy. The hon. Member for Rother Valley spoke of the 600 miners who are leaving the industry every week. I accept that figure, but would like to see it analysed. Those miners are making an economic decision, but not purely because of stages 1 and 2. They are showing that there are other things in market forces than just money.
  Mr. Loughlin: Is it not true that a man who refuses to work overtime is making an economic decision?
  Mr. Proudfoot: Of course it is. Such a man is making an economic decision. The hon. Member for Rother Valley spoke of the 48-year-olds who are leaving the industry. Some of them are making an economic decision. A week ago two Welsh Members said that men are leaving the coal mines in Wales. That demonstrated that our regional policy must be right. I know that miners in Wales will not move out of Wales. They want to move to other jobs in Wales. They make an economic decision, but not about money. The decision is about cleanliness, unsocial hours, and danger.
  Market forces are not just about money. One hundred and one other things enter into market forces.
  The other day—it was when the prospect of an overtime ban in the coal industry was announced—the Leader of the Opposition said that now that oil was
  768
  becoming so dear it would be economic to change coal into oil. He was right. That is another facet of economic forces.
  It is sterile to argue backwards and forwards across the Chamber about the merits of one job as against another. We should not seek to compare conditions in the fishing industry with those in the mining industry or, to take an example from my young days when the movies went from silent to talkies, with those in the orchestra pit losing jobs. The market forces will decide these things far more accurately than any argument. We can have comparisons about wages, but the 600 men who are leaving every week tell their own story.
  Hon. Members have said that there will be a fuel shortage for ever. That is cockeyed and silly. Last year I took part in a Friday debate on vasectomy on the rates. There was a great noise about contraceptives, with a plea being made that there should be free contraceptives for all. The shout this Session is that our population is going down and that we need a Minister for population. That shows how silly some of the fashionable whims and fads can be, when one swops from one side to the other.
  I can prove that there will be a glut of energy in this world in the not too distant future. It is totally wrong for me to say this as a politician, but it is quite accurate. There is a business magazine called Fortune, which is in the Library, and Members can read about the soya bean business. They will see that the big wheel in the soya bean business must be a great character, because he said that "the cure for high prices is higher prices". That has a simple purity about it, but it is very accurate. The Leader of the Opposition said much the same the other day when he spoke about oil going up in price, and said that people will now be making a substitute for oil from coal. That is what technical progress is all about. If there is a shortage of an item, the price goes up and people immediately produce more of it. The soya bean industry is an ideal example. This year, 83 million more acres of wheat is being grown in America, because there is pull in the direction that the market wants.
  Mr. Frank Marsden: I am in general agreement

  769
  with the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. He may be interested to know that a few months ago I was on one of the largest oil rigs in the North Sea and I asked a very naive question of the head tool pusher, never expecting to get an answer. I asked him how much coal gas we in Britain have and he replied, "Enough for 60 years."
  Mr. Proudfoot: I thank the hon. Gentleman. America has the greatest reserves of coal in the world. Speaking on television about the energy crisis, President Nixon said that they would find cheaper ways of converting coal into oil. I am convinced that private enterprise in America will do that. People will find ways of getting energy from coal without having to go underground. That has been the wish in the mining communities for as long as they have existed. The Economist stated this week that there was a shortage of temperate food stuffs in 1966, a coal shortage in 1947, a shortage of raw materials in 1951, and a great rush into shipping after 1956, when the Suez Canal was first closed, with a consequent glut of shipping. This situation applied even to university places.
  All hon. Members have lived through panic in the media. It appears at first that we are to have a permanent shortage of something, and we then find that we are in a situation of glut. That is the operation of the normal law of supply and demand. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Marsden) is another Selsdon man. I am quite convinced that we are all Selsdon men at heart, and that makes me wonder whether, if Governments were elected for seven years instead of five years, we should get out of this cycle and realise—
  Mr. Skinner: 360 degrees.
  Mr. Proudfoot: I would take up the hon. Gentleman on that point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman did not take up sedentary observations.
  Mr. Skinner: That is a warning, I suppose.
  Mr. Proudfoot: The last time we had a coal crisis. I paid a visit to a television
  770
  studio. The miners' strike had been going on for three or four weeks, but there was comparative calm in the country until it was announced that there were going to be power cuts, which meant that television and the Press would be affected and would lose circulation and production. There was immediate panic, and the headlines hit everybody, although people had been almost unaware of the strike until then.
  I hope that on Monday night other Members of the House saw a television programme about trade unions. The programme was headed by an ex-M.P. of the party opposite—Woodrow Wyatt—but there were many trade unionists present, including the leader of the Electrical Trades Union, Frank Chapple.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: He used to be a Communist.
  Mr. Proudfoot: There were many Communists on the programme. I hope that that programme is repeated, because it showed the British public what happens in trade unions. It has been said that more people should turn up at branch meetings. I know exactly how many Communist members are elected to this House. The answer is none. But I do not know how many Communists are elected to local councils. However, if Monday night's programme was accurate about how many Communists are elected to trade union executives, it is shattering to think that they have the same electorate as there is for this place and for local councils. It indicates that trade unions should organise their electoral system better, because I am quite convinced that there would then be much more moderation in the whole attitude towards trade union bargaining, which is a point covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
  It has been announced this week that the Bank Rate was "bumped up", which is the only expression one can use. I should like to make a plea to people in business to stop and think; and I am certain that the Bank Rate will make them do just that. They should stop and look at their stock building. They reached the position where they believed that there would be a permanent shortage of everything, and they were not looking at commodities as closely as they should

  771
  have done. I believe that many commodities have been peaked out. I hope that managing directors will call in their staff and will ask, "How much stock have we got?", because I am sure that some firms will find that they are overstocked. If people did that, it would have an effect on the balance of payments and on world prices. Market places are notoriously full of rumours and people make decisions on rumours. But, thank goodness, in an economy such as ours many people are making decisions.
  I am very sorry that the coal miners have embarked upon this overtime ban. Like typical Selsdon men, they have picked completely the right time to do it. They have done it when we have an oil problem and when we are in a boom situation, with a high demand for fuel. From their point of view they have picked their time well. But I believe they ought to think of the community in the way that the market place does—in other words, they should think of their future customers.
  Looking at the situation in human terms, I am very sorry for the families of miners. Just at the beginning of the run-up to Christmas, the miners have been pushed by their leaders into a situation in which they have to drop to basic earnings. At this time of the year, it will bring great hardship to them.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I want at the outset to refer to one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), the first one being about the trade union leaders who are supposedly urging 260,000 miners to support an overtime ban.
  If the hon. Gentleman had followed the negotiation as closely as I have done, he would have known that the union executive made a decision which it sent back to the branches, which a special conference then decided upon and reported to all the branches—bout 300 of them throughout Britain's coalfields. The net result was mass meetings of miners up and down the country, not merely in the so-called militant areas but in the Midlands, where there had been no display of militancy since the end of the war, certainly until 1970. It was
  772
  evident even in those areas that there was no alternative to taking a decision in accordance with the democratic vote.
  My guess is that when the executive followed through the recommendations from the branches it was really saying something not unlike what the Prime Minister said in 1971. Hon. Members will recall that, despite all the attempts by a number of hon. Members on the Opposition benches, including myself, to urge upon him the need to call a referendum on the Common Market, his reply and that of the Treasury Bench was "We have full-hearted consent." I reckon that the NUM executive has got the full-hearted consent of its members.
  The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough made reference to Woodrow Wyatt's television programme. In fact, it was on Tuesday night. What the hon. Gentleman should understand when he hears Frank Chapple is that he has been without a president for more than 12 months, and it is a little odd to see Honest Frank, as he likes to be called, sitting alongside Woodrow Wyatt attempting to expose the so-called militant trade union leaders. There may be good reasons why Frank Chapple has not had a president for more than 12 months, but he is about the last person to become involved in an argument of that kind.
  The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough pointed out that few trade unionists take part in branch meetings or elections except in crisis conditions such as those that we are discussing at the moment. However, he should remember that when Lonrho had its famous meeting a few months ago a great many votes at the end of the meeting were proxy votes, some of which had been acquired merely to increase voting rights. On that occasion millions of votes were cast supposedly on behalf of millions of people by about 200 or 300 people present at the meeting. Of those millions of votes the platform controlled a great many. The least said about matters like that the better.
  The Home Secretary voiced his concern about the fact that the current agreement does not expire until 28th February 1974. He is quite right about that. However, the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Ministers who set up the Wilberforce inquiry. That inquiry made its pronouncements, which were then enacted. It

  773
  also said that as quickly as possible the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers should get back to a November negotiating period. That is all that the NUM is trying to do.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the overtime ban was more serious on this occasion than it was in 1971. But it is not more serious because Joe Gormley and Lawrence Daly make their statements on television or to Press conferences. It is more serious because the National Association of Colliery Overseers, Deputies and Shotfirers and the Association of Colliery Management are not in the same position as they were on the last occasion. The reason why the overtime ban will perhaps bite to a greater degree this weekend than it did on the first weekend last time is that the Association of Colliery Management and NACODS will not play the same rôle as they did previously. They learned a few lessons out of the 1971 winter overtime ban.
  The Home Secretary should realise that when Joe Gormley, Lawrence Daly or any union spokesmen, make remarks suggesting that there will be a greater problem after the first weekend and the subsequent weekend when no overtime will be worked, the reason for it is the activity, or non-activity, of some people who were doing 10, 12 or 20 hours every weekend in order to try to counter-balance the miners who were missing.
  What is this all about? What are we here for? We are supposed to be debating an urgent matter. The urgent matter is not so much the emergency measures as the crisis in the pits, which has been urgent for a considerable time. The effects of the Wilberforce award disappeared within about nine months and inflation eroded most of the benefits, quite apart from some of the Wilberforce recommendations unfortunately not being implemented, and the crisis has been with us ever since.
  The effect has been seen in my constituency and elsewhere. Up to now, in an effort to solve the massive manpower wastage problem the National Coal Board has from time to time gone along to each of the coalfields and said that such-and-such a pit had better be closed. Of
  774
  course, the NCB could give all sorts of good reasons. On some occasions, it would deliberately cause a pit to become uneconomic by pushing in machinery that would not work. It has done that before. It did it in the 1950s and early 1960s, so it is nothing new to the National Coal Board. It picks on the most uneconomic pit, with 500 men employed, and then disperses those men to the pits where it is short of manpower.
  That has been going on, roughly speaking, ever since the winter of 1972, about nine months after the Wilberforce settlement. But over the whole of that period we heard little or nothing about the manpower shortage, which was chronic then but has since developed further because of a new situation.
  Without doubt, there has been a reasonable reduction in unemployment, not merely in the South-East and the West Midlands but in the intermediate and development areas where most of the coalfields are. The strategy was apparent to all of us. The idea was that the Government would create a boom nicely coinciding with the electoral cycle, everything would be all right, and they would be back in power. It has not worked out that way. But what it meant was that more miners left the pits than hitherto, not merely because of the nature of the job itself but because it was becoming increasingly obvious, even in the intermediate and development areas, that jobs were available, and jobs of a kind that miners had never had a chance to have before.
  That is why one can talk in terms of the average age in coal mining being about 48 or 49. There are variations between coalfields, but by and large there is not much change between about 46 at the lower end and 48 or 50 at the other in all the coalfields of Great Britain.
  Therefore, we had a chronic situation of shortage, now exacerbated by the situation as it developed and the so-called boom economy got under way. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not—whether they manage to score a victory, whatever they are after in this conflict—the plain truth is that if they are concerned about having a coal mining industry producing 120 million to 130 million tons they must pay miners to go down that hole and dig the coal.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member seems to forget that phase 3 has now been approved by the elected Parliament on behalf of the nation, and, whatever he may say about the merits of the case, the miners' pressure is not against the National Coal Board but against the elected Government of our nation. Will he address himself to that?
  Mr. Skinner: I was coming to that later, but I shall address myself to it now. It should be made patently obvious to the hon. Gentleman when he reminds us that he voted for the price and pay code last week—
  Mr. Awdry: Parliament did.
  Mr. Skinner: I voted against it. The hon. Member voted for it. What the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind is that about the time when he was doing that an agreement was drawn up in Glasgow between the Pay Board, the Government and the Glasgow firemen which drove a fire engine straight through the phase 3 proposals. The miners have found that hole and are going through it.
  I have news for the hon. Gentleman. A hell of a lot more industrial workers will go through it as well. It is not just a question of the Glasgow firemen, though I thank God they were there. The miners and other industrial workers can read; they are better educated than they were before the war, when they lost more than one strike. They have been able to develop their strategy to a finer degree, and they can see what is happening on the other side of the fence. They have people like me to ensure when we return to the coalfields that they are informed about anything they may have missed.
  When the ordinary miner reads about Sir John Stratton, and about the Green Shield Stamps chairman, Mr. Richard Tompkins, picking up £250,000 in one year for manufacturing Green Shield stamps, and we then talk about emergency measures, what does the House think he will say?
  When miners read in the Sunday Times as some of them do nowadays, that among the ways to get round phase 2, phase 3 and any other phases that might be applied, although they will not be applied, are job swapping, redefining the name of the job and opting for perks rather than an increase; that the Govern-
  776
  ment in the middle of phase 2 were able to hand out £15 million to building societies, not for an abstract thing to use, but for people who had investments in building societies; when it suddenly becomes obvious that all the talk about one nation is codswallop; when they see that they have been kidded, and reflect upon what happened at the beginning of this year during phase 2, when they somewhat meekly accepted £1 plus 4 per cent.; when they realise that after they balloted for increased pension for miners who had been down the pits 40–50 years the Government that supposedly gave them the increase took it away by reducing supplementary benefit; when they see all those things, they realise that it is one big confidence trick, and they are not too worried about phase 3.
  The miners know that phase 3 is meaningless anyway. In the situation that developed this week, phase 3 matters little. A much bigger crisis is on the horizon. If the Government remain in power we might even go the full circle, not a somersault but a double somersault, and be back to the old lame duck scene. That is what is likely to happen, especially if the Conservatives get rid of the First Lord of the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues to a greater degree, are considering.
  Concerned as they are with the nation's interests, the miners also have to read about the Cementation Company recruiting and bringing in at £15 a day—not in my area, because we never allowed it—
  Mr. Concannon: Nor in mine.
  Mr. Skinner: —teams working alongside miners on a maximum of £7 a day. They see that the company manages to get through phase 3 without any problem. Are they expected to accept that?
  They read in the Daily Telegraph colour supplement that the hard-pressed Fleet line underground moles in London are earning £150 a week, working in relatively salubrious conditions. Does the House expect that ordinary miners of the type I have addressed during the past weekend and before will meekly accept the conditions laid down by the Government? No. They are going straight through the hole made by all those that have already gone through phase 3—make no mistake about that.

  777
  We hear about unsocial hours from Ministers, including the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who took the Co-op divi. Imagine him telling miners to behave themselves. He made his money by fleecing somebody else. Thank God an inquiry is taking place!
  Mr. William Price: Read about it in The Observer.
  Mr. Skinner: When they talk about unsocial hours, do Conservative Members understand what is happening in the coal-mining industry because of the run-down that has taken place over many months? The National Coal Board has consistently been unable to send in adequate teams on the night shift. It is pretty obvious that the boys have reckoned it up. They know that if there is to be a reasonable premium payment for working unsocial hours, a new shift payment covering 8 p.m. to 6 a.m., the National Coal Board, if it wants to balance its books and make sure that someone else is making money—perhaps someone who is supplying pit props or something of that kind—will ensure that as few miners as possible work between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. They do not see much in that provision for them.
  Therefore, whether Conservative Members like it or not, in a situation where rents have increased by about £1·50 and where the National Coal Board has taken advantage of the situation and put up its rents in line with the provisions of the Housing Finance Act, the miners know that the only way to make headway is by fighting for what they want as they fought for it in 1972.
  We should not, therefore, get too concerned about a pit ballot. The miners will hold a pit ballot when necessary. They have already held one with their feet—by marching out. Those who remain will have their ballot whether it is the type authorised by the Government under the Industrial Relations Act or whether they do it according to their own rules. The Minister must realise that what the miners have done up to now is to take the recommendations of the branch meetings to the 300 or so pits and that what is being done is with the full-hearted consent of the men. Every Minister knows what that means, because they dragged Britain into the Common Market on the same basis.
  778
  As for not breaking the law, I think I dealt adequately with that point when it was raised earlier. The law is now meaningless. Phase 3, for what it really is, matters little enough. When it was introduced, many of the editorials in the heavy newspapers made the point, long before I had thought of it, that it would matter not at all.
  Mr. Awdry: If the rule of law is meaningless—if the laws of the country can simply be pushed to one side—what does the hon. Member suggest should be put in its place?
  Mr. Skinner: I have explained the point already to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awrdy). The miners have seen all those other categories of people getting away with it. Let me give the hon. Member another example on the reverse side of the coin.
  Mr. Awdry: Answer the question.
  Mr. Skinner: I am answering it, boy. Do not get excited. On 12th August every company over a certain size—and this applied to more than a hundred but not to the top companies with which we were dealing in our debates at the Labour Party conference—was asked to make its returns for the half year. Twelfth August was the day on which the six-month period expired under phase 2. What happened? I made some inquiries. A few companies fitted in with the Government's requirements. Others did it in a different way. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) knows a lot about this. Some companies in a rather clever way and with the help of their sharp accountants, subdivided in such a way as to get round the Government's requirements. Other companies had difficulty in employing such accountants. Perhaps they would have needed too much money even for them. They had more difficult problems, so they refused to send in their returns even after warnings by the Pay Board. Mr. Patrick Skillington was not sent in to see them.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not one of those companies was prosecuted. Not one of the company directors was prosecuted. I have sent the Prime Minister dozens of examples which show that the law has been deliberately and consistently broken during phase 1 and phase 2. There has

  779
  not been one prosecution. But the AEUW is viciously persecuted by a so-called impartial judge who is a former Tory candidate.
  Mr. Skinner: It goes further than that. When I was involved in the Sir John Stratton outrage, when it became apparent that somebody had to follow up the matter on the media, I was given the job of debating the matter on "Nationwide" with the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who is the chairman of the back-bench committee of the Tory Party.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is in the racket.
  Mr. Skinner: He holds 18 directorships.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is never here.
  Mr. Skinner: Several of those directorships—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must try to avoid having a private conversation between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). If the hon. Member for Bolsover will continue to address me and his hon. Friend will allow him to do so, we shall get on better.
  Mr. Skinner: I want to deal with the people who managed to get away with all the so-called provisions and regulations of phase 3.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: With the help of the Government.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Taunton, with all his directorships, became a full-time executive director of a certain company. He succeeded a man who was paid £7,000. The right hon. Gentleman did the same job as a full-time executive for £25,000.
  When the right hon. Gentleman would not appear on television with me to debate the matter—namely, to discuss the very point which the hon. Member for Chippenham was on about, the evasion of the law and a sense of responsibility—I made some inquiries at the BBC as to the situation within the corporation. I asked the people there how they had managed
  780
  to survive on £1 plus 4 per cent. I was told "We do things differently here."
  The man who was going to act as a hostile interviewer for me, the man who was going to subordinate himself to take the rôle of the hon. Member for Taunton, Mr. Michael Barratt, had his salary renegotiated during phase 2. When I told Mr. Barratt on television that Sir John Stratton was only the tip of the iceberg and reminded him that his salary had been renegotiated at a level above £1 plus 4 per cent., Mr. Barratt said "I do not think that the viewers will be interested in that."
  The miners saw that interview. We must understand that when they know that some categories are getting away with increases in salary and many perks such as free mortgages, interest-free loans and renegotiable contracts, we cannot expect them to sit back and take £2·30 and £2·50. No! The battle lines have been drawn. The Government have decided that they want another confrontation. I have news for them; they will lose just as heavily as they lost last time.
  It is important to remember that not only the emergency measures concern the British people. We are now being swamped by a crisis of much greater proportions. The emergency measures should have been taken to deal with that crisis. The Treasury Bench might well act now and take not only the advice of my right hon. and hon. Friends but the advice of some Conservative Members.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. David Waddington: I would be guilty of understatement if I said that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had covered a wide field.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Nothing more to be said now.
  Mr. Waddington: At one stage the hon. Gentleman referred to the country's interest, but in the rest of his speech one did not hear of much which had any relation to the country's real interest. It is quite impossible to argue that what happened at the time of Wilberforce and what happened after Wilberforce in any way furthered the national interest. It only gave another twist to the inflationary spiral. It is also impossible to argue that Wilberforce did anything in the long run for the miners, because the miners'

  781
  complaint today is that, although as a result of the Wilberforce award they went up in the league table after the award, as a result of the twist of the inflationary spiral they began to go down the league table again. Therefore, it is surely impossible to argue that it is in the national interest to see, in the next month or two, a repeat performance of what happened only a relatively few months ago.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a television programme in which Mr. Woodrow Wyatt featured. I would have thought that the message to be drawn from that programme was simple—that the Communists have a very great influence in the trade union movement. One should always bear in mind—one is not being provocative but talking common sense and drawing the right lessons from history—that the Communist Party and individual Communists do not, in the last resort, owe their first loyalty to this country, although it is an unfortunate fact that they are able to prey on individual grievances of people in this country. One has only to recall the situation in 1939 when the Communist Party of Great Britain would not even support the war against Nazi Germany until its masters in Russia were attacked.
  Mr. Neil McBride: I am a lifelong trade unionist. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Moscow runs our trade unions.
  Mr. Waddington: I did not say anything of the sort.
  Mr. McBride: I am a member of the second largest union in the country. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he wants to be honourable, name the persons to whom he is referring?
  Mr. Waddington: I did not say that the Communist Part ran the trade union movement. I said what is obvious, that the Communist Party has great influence on the trade union movement. There are many Communists in posts of authority in the movement.
  I was glad to hear one matter raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover. He gave us credit for reducing unemployment in recent years. We have so reduced unemployment that for the first time, according to him, miners have been able to have a range of job opportunities
  782
  which they have never had before. It was an interesting comment.
  The Government's action in introducing these emergency powers cannot by the greatest stretch of imagination be described as provocative. I cannot accept that the Opposition believe it to be provocative when, only 10 minutes before the final speeches, only a handful of hon. Members are sitting on the Opposition benches.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Even fewer Tories are present.
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Member carries on like that he might suffer an injury. He should realise full well that it is the Opposition who are attacking the taking of emergency powers and that it is, therefore, perfectly proper for me to point out that it is patently ridiculous for the Opposition to argue that our action is provocative when it has been so lacking in provocation as to fail to bring in more than a handful of Opposition Member throughout the whole of the day.
  I will certainly not be provocative in dealing with the terms of this order. Every hon. Member opposite would concede that the future of our oil supplies is uncertain. We do not put it higher or lower than that. If we couple with that the fact that our production of coal is lower now than it was two or three days ago, and if we add to that the fact that the National Union of Mineworkers has just said that the object of its action is to reduce coal production still further, it must be faced by every hon. Member that in the weeks to come there could be the risk of a serious dislocation of production.
  I cannot honestly believe that the hon. Gentlemen, particularly those who have had to bear any responsibility of government, can say that this Government would have been bearing their proper share of responsibility if, faced with these facts, they had sat down and done precisely nothing and hoped that perhaps in the next few weeks something would turn up.
  I come to the ridiculous comment that what we have done is provocative. Surely there could have been nothing more provocative than to have introduced emergency powers of this nature after the industrial action had been proceeding for four, five or six weeks, when the lights had gone out and tempers were getting strained. The Government have

  783
  leant over backwards to deal with this in a sensible, low-key manner by introducing the emergency powers at this stage, and, at first, making a very limited number of regulations affecting the public only to a limited extent and not affecting the miners at all.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Has the hon. and learned Member any factual knowledge of the effect upon coal production of the first three days of the overtime ban? I was in the coalfield only four and a half hours ago talking to the highest Coal Board officials in the area and the highest officials of the trade union. If the hon. and learned Member can tell me that the emergency powers have been introduced because of the serious effect that the overtime ban has had in three days then I will go through the same Lobby as he does tonight.
  Mr. Waddington: I do not blame the hon. Member for one moment, but it is obvious from what he said that he was not present during the Minister's speech today.
  Mr. Swain: The Whips did not send for me. I have been working.
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Member would listen I could tell him something he obviously does not yet know. It is that we heard this afternoon that coal production has been quite seriously affected and that there has been a reduction of something like 25 per cent. a day since the ban began.
  Mr. Swain: Do not talk wet.
  Mr. Waddington: If that is not serious I do not know what is. Quite clearly the Government would have been failing in their responsibility if they had not taken this action knowing these facts.
  The Government are now tied to a statutory incomes policy. It may be that they were wrong to introduce it, they may have been right, but the fact remains that it has now been introduced and endorsed by votes in this House. Although there is still room for manoeuvre, there is not a great deal.
  The miners—I say this in all solemnity—must realise that in their own interests and for political and legal reasons the Government cannot give way, as some of
  784
  their leaders apparently wish, because they cannot break their own law. They cannot give way because the country knows what happened after the last surrender at the time of Wilberforce. If the Government were to give way I should find it very hard indeed to forgive them. The floodgates would be opened to yet another vicious twist in the inflationary spiral. We would see repeated all the terrible mistakes that followed the Wilberforce award. Therefore, I do not believe that the Government can or will give way.
  The Government recognise that the Pay Board has some room for maneouvre. It is the Government's wish that, within the scope of the incomes policy, negotiations should continue, but the miners' leaders must recognise that the Government are as much tied by the law as are the miners and their union. That being so, surely it is time that we all recognised the situation as it is. I know that the country recognises that we cannot just surrender and give way to another torrential bout of inflation. The country certainly recognises that the Government are right to introduce these emergency powers now to deal with any serious situation which may arise.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I have been stung into intervening by something which has been common to many of the speeches that we have heard from the Government benches. Hon. Members opposite have sought to depict my fellow trade unionist as wild, irresponsible, reckless men who have no regard for the community and their families. It is a picture which I do not recognise.
  We have been told of militancy, and reckless, wild behaviour has been suggested. Militancy can take many different forms. It can take the form that regrettably manifested itself in, for example, Doncaster at this start of the troubles. But it can also take the form that it has taken in this House from the Dispatch Box. That is where we had some of the militancy which, despite what has just been said about provocation, has been provocative and has persistently soured the atmosphere of industrial relations.
  We have an industrial relations situations about which we should be concerned, and I am. We shall not cure

  785
  that problem unless we can create a climate and atmosphere in which people are prepared to go part of the way to recognising and understanding and doing something about it. However, I suggest carefully and deliberately that one of the most disruptive and malignant influences in the last three years has been the Home Secretary.
  In this Chamber we talk of the responsibility we all have to observe the law and the particularly heavy responsibility that rests on those of us who are here because of the parliamentary democratic system to urge those outside to accept, observe and work according to the laws that we pass. That, in turn, imposes a doubly heavy obligation upon the law makers to ensure that the laws we pass are universal in their effect—that they do not apply only to some sections of the community; that they cannot easily be evaded by others, as instanced by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and that they are acceptable to the community as a whole.
  In Act after Act—one thinks immediately of the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act—and in their prices and incomes policies, the Government have discriminated against one section of the community. They have singled out working-class groups for unfair and unjust treatment, and they can hardly complain if there is a deplorable mood in the country and people do not have the respect for the law which they should have, and which we should inculcate in them.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: There is no doubt that the Acts mentioned by my hon. Friend are controversial. In addition, under phase 1 and phase 2, and now again under phase 3, the Government have encouraged their friends to break the provisions of the Acts and have refused to take any action when evidence of that happening has been submitted to them.
  Mr. Walker: I do not know how true that allegation is, but there has been a lack of readiness on the part of the Government to pursue, with the vigour with which they are pursuing the case against the miners, certain breaches which have been referred to them.
  786
  Contrary to what was said today by some hon. Gentleman opposite, what was said on Tuesday, and what is said every time we debate industrial relations and a prices and incomes policy, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of people, and certainly the overwhelming majority of my fellow trade unionists, are sensible, decent people, who are willing to accept and make the law work so long as they are convinced that it is just and fair, and is universal in its application.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: First, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the amendment announced by the Minister for Industry to Statutory Instrument No. 1900 to exempt schools from these restrictions. It is sensible that that should be so, and we are pleased that the hon. Gentleman was able to respond so quickly to the suggestion that was made to him. I am amazed that schools were included at all, and if the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is correct, that these provisions were drafted without the assistance of the Electricity Council and those who know about supplies, it shows how incompetently the matter has been dealt with.
  Ever since the Government came to power our parliamentary Sessions have included three ritual ocasions: first, the debate on the Queen's Speech; secondly, the Budget debate; and, thirdly, a debate on a state of emergency. When the Home Secretary announced the state of emergency on Tuesday, one of my hon. Friends commented that "under Ted Heath it is not so much a state of emergency but more a way of life."
  It is true that during the last couple of months a fuel emergency has been looming larger and larger—that has been amply brought out in the debate—but the Government have shown themselves curiously unconcerned, despite warnings from informed commentators which have grown sharper and more frequent as time has passed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and others have said, we are faced with an oil emergency. That is what this is all about. Let us look at how this has built up.

  787
  A headline in the Financial Times on 4th October was
  "Warning of possible oil shortage."
  On 28th October we read
  "Oil rationing edges nearer."
  "Oil companies worried by lack of steps to direct or ration supplies of products."
  "The case for precautionary rationing."
  "Threats to our winter fuel."
  That was on 1st November.
  On 8th November appeared the following:
  "Panic buying of oil products in Britain."
  On 10th November, the Financial Times said:
  "Britain faces oil shortfall of 15 per cent.—25 per cent. this winter."
  "Oil chaos threatens homes."
  That was on 11th November.
  Before that, on 3rd November, appeared the following:
  "Fuel crisis will get worse."
  In the Financial Times, Mr. Adrian Hamilton, who is, perhaps, the greatest expert on energy matters writing in the British Press today, analysed the problems which might result from industrial action in the coal industry and the electricity supply industry. He concluded:
  "But the really serious threat remains to oil supplies."
  After making a similar analysis, The Guardian came to precisely the same conclusion. It said:
  "The serious anxiety, though, remains our crude oil supplies."
  Oil accounts for half of Britain's industrial energy consumption and 47 per cent. of the nation's total energy consumption. Yet, in the face of a chorus of warnings about oil, the Government took no action. The shortages of diesel fuel, industrial fuel oil and domestic oil have grown so serious—right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side of the House must know this—that Shell-Mex, BP and Burmah have had to take special measures of allocation and restriction. There were sharp reactions from some people, including the chairman of the Road Haulage Association. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—Mr. Peter "Micawber" Walker now, because he is always hoping that something will turn up—has made two state-
  788
  ments in the House about oil supply. Both those statements have been incredibly and culpably complacent.
  What was the reason for the unflappability of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? One theory is that he actually believed his Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), when on 5th October, outside the House, he said:
  "Britain's stocks of oil are high and any problems of energy supply are capable of sensible solution without the need for emergency measures."
  That is what the Under-Secretary said some time ago. I want to be fair to the Under-Secretary. He did indicate that the situation might change if there was trouble in the Middle East. The war broke out two days later, and cuts began to be made in our international supply.
  Why did the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry still take no action? There was a hint of the reason in the statement on 5th November. He was questioned very closely in the House, but he made a Freudian slip—if the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will forgive me. The Secretary of State made a passing reference to the forthcoming by-elections. The by-elections came and went. But still the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not necessary to take any action.
  It is true that the power engineers were engaged in industrial action; but that had been taking place for nearly a fortnight, since 1st November. Clearly, that was not a new factor. It is true that the miners had begun an overtime ban; but that had been taking place for only one day, and the coal supply situation was scarcely discouraging.
  What is the coal supply situation? I do not think that the Government deny that the distributed stocks include three months' supplies for power stations, a much better situation than this time last year and much better than at the time of the last coal dispute. It has been pointed out that at the beginning of this month Britain was entering this winter better prepared in terms of coal, gas and power station supplies and stocks than at any time since the war.
  Indeed, this feeling of confidence seemed to prevail within the Government as recently as Monday of this week. The

  789
  Minister for Industry told the House about electricity supplies. He said:
  "So far there have been only minor voltage reductions, and the only limitations on supply have resulted from a small number of breakdowns in the distribution system followed by delays in reconnecting supplies."
  That was about electricity supplies. He said about coal:
  "the power stations have substantial coal stocks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 29–31.)
  That sounded extremely reassuring. Yet 24 hours later the Home Secretary said:
  "The Government consider that the present situations in the coal and electricity generating industries constitute a threat to the essentials of life to the community which is sufficiently serious to justify taking immediate emergency powers to maintain essential services."—[OFF1CIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 257.]
  Today the Home Secretary made repeated references to the grave uncertainty about oil supplies. On Tuesday, in the statement I have just read out, he made no reference to oil supplies. It is a rather strange and extraordinary alteration that has come about in the Government's attitude after a night when no appreciable change had affected electricity or coal supplies, about which the Minister for Industry was so sanguine on Monday, 24 hours earlier.
  The Secretary of State said today that on Monday it was becoming apparent that coal production would be reduced by 25 per cent. He said that it had already gone down by 25 per cent. I assume that a decision was taken on the state of emergency on Monday evening.
  Mr. R. Carr indicated dissent.
  Mr. Varley: All right, the next morning. There are many hon. Members on this side who know something about the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) has just indicated that he does.
  Assuming that on Monday evening the Government were considering proclaiming a state of emergency, only one shift had been worked on overtime banning. The afternoon shift was still in progress. The night shift was still to come. There had not been a complete cycle of work within the pits. Apparently the Secretary of State knew by some magical
  790
  means that on Monday evening there had been a reduction of 25 per cent. in coal production. That will not wash.
  Could it be, for example, that the Government had decided to take emergency action because of outbreaks of violence or serious picketing which were affecting the fuel situation? Far from it. There has been none of that. Joe Gormley, the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, has rejected the idea of picketing the power stations during the overtime ban, and the power workers and power engineers are engaged in their first industrial action for 60 years. The Minister for Industry, during his soothing remarks on Monday, went out of his way to describe them as
  "this most responsible group of men".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 31.]
  There was not any outright violence during picketing.
  Perhaps the Home Secretary announced the state of emergency because of a more profound but obscure threat to the rule of law. The Home Secretary tried to imply this on Tuesday in a most discreditable performance. Yet when he was challenged he dodged and slithered away from making the charge that miners or power workers were breaking the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was the impression.
  Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman will look up HANSARD for the day, he will see that I never said that these workers were breaking the law. I never implied or said it.
  Mr. Heffer: Why did I rise on a point of order, then?
  Mr. Carr: Because the hon. Gentleman misinterpreted what I said.
  Mr. Heffer: You said it.
  Mr. Carr: I did not say it. I deny that I have said it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), from a sedentary position, has made a very interesting proposition, but let us get on.
  Mr. Carr: It is not true that I did not mention oil on Tuesday. It is true that

  791
  I did not do so in my opening statement, but in my very next answer I said:
  "… in view also of the uncertainty about oil supplies owing to the crisis in the Middle East".
  It was there from the very beginning, and we know that the first day's output was down by 20 per cent. as a result of the ban.
  Mr. Varley: I am not so sure that I want to take up some of those points, but I shall take up just one about the Home Secretary's mentioning oil supplies. He has just admitted that he came to the House with a carefully prepared statement and did not mention oil supplies. It is absolutely incredible that after preparing a statement all morning the Home Secretary did not include a reference to the oil situation, and that it had to be dragged out of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin.
  I do not want to go over the question of breaking the law, but the Secretary of State is absolutely right. Nobody is breaking the law. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman accused the miners of trying to break the Government.
  Mr. Carr: I did not. I quoted Mr. Gormley. They were not my words; I was quoting Mr. Gormley's words.
  Mr. Varley: I do not want to keep quoting the exchanges, but what the right hon. Gentleman said was:
  "What I said was that to break the law passed by this Parliament about pay and to do it with the deliberate intention of breaking the properly elected Government of the country is even more undemocratic than anything we have had to deal with so far."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 260–4.]
  All we are saying is that the Government are not the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central said that in the debate. The highest legal advice has been taken and that is not the situation at all. Opposing the Government is not breaking the law, and there is not one hon. Gentleman in this House who can tell me that the power workers or the miners are breaking the law in the industrial action that they are taking. Of course they are not breaking the law.
  On the question of general energy supplies, there was a case for taking precautionary action to deal with the oil crisis. Some suspicious people believe
  792
  that the Government, having previously defaulted in taking any action, probably think that they can now slip through the rationing of petrol under these emergency measures. But let me warn the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—if he is the chap who is going to do it—that nobody will be taken in by that one. The Government say that the emergency has been declared because of the situation in the coal and electricity industries. Although I use the roads quite a lot, I have yet to see any coal-fired Cortinas or electrically-powered Jaguars on the motorways. But the Secretary of State may well say that it is the coal industry which has caused petrol rationing.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Walker): I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, right from the very beginning, I have stated that the Government have prepared legislation which could be quickly introduced if we needed to have petrol rationing.
  Mr. Varley: The reasons for this state of emergency must be found elsewhere, and they must be found in the fact that for some days now the Government have been aware that next Monday will see the publication of some highly disturbing money supply figures, and I know that to coincide with the publication of those figures the Government had decided, or some people have suggested that they had decided, on a severe credit squeeze. But the Government suddenly became aware that the trade figures were due to be published six days ahead of the money supply figures. Usually, trade figures are published on Tuesdays, as my right hon. and hon. Friends in the last Labour Government learned to their cost two days before the General Election when trade figures were published showing a £31 million deficit. The figures were miraculous compared with the record of this Government. Nevertheless, they were exploited unscrupulously by the Prime Minister in his notorious "at a stroke" statement.
  The Government knew that this trade deficit would be 10 times worse than the one which they denounced in June 1970. In the hope of preventing a disastrous run on the pound, they decided to

  793
  bring forward some of next Monday's measures by announcing a 13 per cent. Bank Rate, and the rest of it. A meeting of Ministers was held in Downing Street on Monday night. At that meeting I believe it was also decided to declare a state of emergency, which was not justified on the basis of the statement by the Minister for Industry earlier that day.
  In my view the state of emergency was declared to throw up a smokescreen designed to obscure the total collapse of the Government's economic policy. With luck, the state of emergency might pin on Mr. Joe Gormley and Mr. John Lyons, the secretary of the power engineers, the guilt which truly belonged to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a gimmick to end all gimmicks, and it came from a Prime Minister who promised in the Conservative Party's manifesto to sweep away trivialities and gimmicks. This smokescreen to outdo all smokescreens came from a Prime Minister who said in a personal foreword to the Conservative Party manifesto:
  "At the first sign of difficulty the Labour Government has sounded the retreat, covering its withdrawal with a smokescreen of unlikely excuses."
  It came from a Prime Minister who proclaimed that
  "… courage and intellectual honesty are essential qualities in politics …".
  The most scandalous aspect of this lamentable performance is that we face an emergency. There is no doubt about that. Primarily it is an oil emergency. Now it will become an emergency in the electricity supply industry and the coal industry. The reasons that the Government give for the present emergency are totally phoney. Among the power engineers there is a profound sense of grievance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central said. Manual workers in electricity supply were lucky enough to get their 15 per cent. before the pay freeze came into operation. No one begrudges them that. But the power engineers were caught by the freeze and, as a result, in many cases they are being paid less than the men whom they supervise and for whose safety the law makes them responsible. The Electricity Council has agreed that the increase should be paid. Only the Government are stopping it.
  794
  The emergency in the coal mines is even more serious. We need every ton of coal that can be dug. With recent oil prices adding about £400 million to a frightening balance of payments deficit, it is essential to maximise the output of indigenous fuels. Yet we are losing miners from the industry at the rate of more than 600 a week.
  There is no way of digging coal without miners. Does the Secretary of State want them? The situation is a labour shortage. The miners have a case. The Secretary of State will get miners only if he is prepared to pay them wages to take the risks that they take. If there is anything that the Government ought to look at it is the criteria of their energy policy rather than the criteria of their incomes policy.
  We have an extremely tight energy situation, yet that tight energy situation is totally subordinated to an incompetently formulated pay policy.
  The other day, the Minister for Industry told the House of discussions with the National Coal Board about its longterm plan. This plan involves the exploitation of newly discovered coal reserves. The Secretary of State will not get those coal reserves unless he gets the miners. If sufficient miners are not available to exploit those reserves, a priceless national asset will go.
  The Home Secretary decided last week that he had got to take on the miners—as one of my hon. Friends put it. He may disagree with that, and he may say that it was not his fault that there was a dispute in 1972, but he set up the Wilberforce inquiry and it was he who personally endorsed, on behalf of the Government, the findings of that inquiry, including the need for an adjustment backward to relate the pay of miners to pay in manufacturing industry. That is the answer to the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington); the Secretary of State for the Home Department endorsed it on behalf of the Government.
  If the right hon. Gentleman recognised at that time—I think that he did—that purchasing power had been eroded and needed to be maintained, some way ought to be found for dealing with this matter now. The hon. Member for

  795
  Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has pointed out that the Government could find a way to deal with the situation within phase 3 and the pay code.
  Last year, the Home Secretary—I think that he will agree now—underestimated the miners and he underestimated and failed to understand the mood of the British people. I hope that he will not make the same mistake again. The miners are the same people, and the British people are the same people.
  The Government ought to recognise where the true emergency lies, in the need to do something now. Yet what they are doing by being obdurate and stupid in not allowing this matter to be dealt with only makes it more serious and more difficult to solve. For that reason, we shall vote against them tonight.
  9.38 p.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): At a time when, as we knew this afternoon, the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers have adjourned discussions until Monday, and when there are matters which they still have on the table to discuss, I had hoped that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) would think it right to make a responsible speech.
  The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous administration, which ran down the mining industry to a substantial extent, closing 276 pits and putting 185,000 miners out of work, allowing miners' pay to rise by £4 during their six years of office compared with the £13 which the miners have received under this Government. So I could go on, but I leave it there. It was highly irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to make a speech like that.
  The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show that our measures were brought in because the emergency is an oil emergency. In his Shadow position on the Opposition Front Bench, he ought to know the truth of the matter. Energy comprises not just one component but several—oil, coal, gas and electricity—and one's view of energy resoures must take into account stocks held. It is for the Government to assess these and to make a balanced judgment upon the availability of supplies and the relationship between
  796
  supply and demand, and upon the assurances received from suppliers, including not just the assurances received from suppliers in the oil-producing countries but the assurances which some of us believed we had received from the miners themselves. But if one part of that package is removed—if the assurances of secure supplies of coal are removed—the situation changes and a responsible Government must act. They must act when, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, on the first day of the present action coal supplies dropped by 20 per cent., and the President of the National Union of Mineworkers clearly spelt out the threat that if the ban was properly applied, there would be few pits working after the first week. Would not the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have acted in such circumstances? The hon. Lady shakes her head.
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Boardman: Would they have allowed coal stocks to be run down, with the threat from the President of the NUM that at the end of the first week coal supplies would cease? Would they have risked our industry grinding to a halt? Would they have risked the fireplaces in homes throughout the country being left with empty grates? Apparently they would.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that every time there is an overtime ban or strike for one day in any element of the power industry we should declare a state of emergency?
  Mr. Boardman: I do not know what credence the hon. Lady places upon the execlutive of the NUM. If it has said that it intends to bring the pits to a halt, does she believe that it means it? If she says that it is purely bluff, and that she would have called that bluff, that must be a point of view. But for a responsible Government, having experienced the problems that can hit this country if miners decide to take such action, not to have acted would have been highly irresponsible in our judgment.
  Mr. Heffer: I am fascinated by the knowledge that the Minister accepts immediately the views of Mr. Joe Gormley. The TUC has been explaining to the Government that if they continued as they were we should be in a terrible

  797
  crisis. Why did not the Government accept the TUC's word the first time they heard it?
  Mr. Boardman: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman means that he does not accept the word of Mr. Gormley. If he tells me that he does not, I note what he says.
  The hon. Lady rightly said, in opening, as I would have expected from her, that the Opposition would not condone any attempt to break the Government by industrial action. She also said, and again I would have expected it from her, that the law must be upheld. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not seem to support her on that, nor did Mr. Gormley, who said that the men meant to get a £40-a-week basic wage, and that if that meant breaking the Government on their pay freeze policy, a break there would have to be.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He has challenged a statement I made.
  Mr. Boardman: The Government believe that the orders are needed to achieve economic growth, the increase of real wealth and the fulfilment of our policy for countering inflation.
  I shall try briefly to deal with some of the points raised by hon. Members, who have asked for more details. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) drew attention to the display lighting in Oxford Street. We are looking at all these cases but a number of them involve private generators. She also asked why the orders dealt only with electricity and not with oil or coal. Both oil and coal are used in electricity generation and therefore to the extent that this process is covered the consumption of oil is dealt with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in one of his usual well-balanced speeches, made the point, with which I entirely agree, that it is a pity that these issues between management and men seem to be fought out by the media. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the media, if they are giving one side of the argument, to give a balanced account and give the other side of the argument also. But I share with my hon. Friend the view that the right place for these matters to be settled is not on the
  798
  television screen but at the negotiating table.
  My hon. Friend also asked, as did other hon. Members, about the wastage of 600 men a week from the pits. The first week in which the figure of 600 occurred was the week after the NUM had put in its wage demand backed by the resolution of the conference which implied or threatened industrial action. It is the uncertainty of continued employment, the fear of not being able to work overtime and the risk that the mines might be closed during the winter months and over Christmas that is causing men to leave the mines at a time, I am glad to say, of much more employment,
  Mr. Pardoe rose—
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Boardman: I hope that the hon. Members will bear with me. I shall deal with their points in a moment. The hon. Member for Cornwall, Ncrth (Mr. Pardoe) made clear that there were open votes to which I must respond. He asked what effect the exodus of manpower was estimated to have on production. It is not possible to make an assessment like that. It depends on the areas affected and the degree of productivity achieved there. However, it is clearly essential that there returns to the industry the stability of manpower and the stability and security of employment which were written into the 20-point plan discussed between the Coal Board and the unions a year ago.
  The hon. Member asked what must be paid to secure that manpower. The offer that is now on the table, which could give 16½ per cent. and could enable a face worker doing normal shifts with a normal amount of overtime to earn over £5 a week—a man working longer shifts could earn considerably more—coupled with the redundancy provision, the pension provision and the transfer provision—which were substantially improved by the Coal Industry Act—could return stability and security to the industry, attract the men it needs and keep them there.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Boardman: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North and the hon. Member for Chesterfield suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had

  799
  been complacent. That is most unjustified. Anyone reading the record of the statements by my right hon. Friend and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government would see that throughout we have said that there are uncertainties about oil but that we were satisfied that no further action was needed to restrain demand. The matter is and will be kept under close review. There has been no complacency on the part of the Government and there has been no complacency on the part of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Pardoe rose—
  Mr. Michael Cocks: He has only just come in.
  Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is now no need for any Government action on oil supplies and that he has come before the House with no proposals for oil rationing?
  Mr. Boardman: I am not saying that. I will come on to that matter later, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) referred to the rates which are being paid. I remind him of the rates which I have quoted. Those rates, when compared with the rates which were paid during the Opposition's administration, are such that no hon. Member on this side of the House need be ashamed.
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Boardman: I must get on.
  Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman referred to me. I ask him two questions which I have asked previously. Does he think that £40 a week, which is the rate which is paid for temporary shorthand typists in the City of London, the proper rate in 1973 for a coalminer? My second question is one which I asked four hours ago. If he claims that there is flexibility in his Government's policies, will he make his own estimate of what the National Coal Board could offer, and then make a comparison with that and the present offer?
  Mr. Boardman: The National Coal Board, as is everyone else, is confined
  800
  by the counter-inflation policy. Any offer made must be within that framework. The hon. Gentleman will know that the National Coal Board is being supported financially to an enormous extent by the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned £40 a week. The rates which I have quoted for a face worker under the present offer are, I believe, attractive. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the other end of the scale. A 19-year old unmarried man who is a surface worker, working no overtime, will with fringe benefits be receiving, under the offer, the equivalent of over £30 a week. That is for a 19-year old man.
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Boardman: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked me about the consultation which has taken place with the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is right that I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the regulations were similar to those which had previously been approved and operated by the board. Some alterations had been made, and it was because of those alterations, and the breakdown in consultation, that I felt bound to make the changes which I announced earlier. There had not been consultation about that matter. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he was correct.
  I must remind hon. Members of the attitude of the National Union of Mineworkers and the other unions in September of last year, when an agreement was reached and formulated which resulted in the Coal Industry Act. It included the provision of some £1,100 million for the industry. The unions, including the National Union of Mineworkers, wrote to me to say that the proposals would provide:
  "a real opportunity for the coal industry to be restored to a viable basis".
  In their undertaking they said that one of their objectives would be to get productivity moving ahead. They said that was a joint and major priority. They said:
  "We all recognise that only if we succeed here shall we have any effective chance of containing costs, of remaining competitive …"
  The union also recognized—this is the document to which its leaders and the

  801
  others put their hands as part of the bargain which was made—that
  "to increase the general level of coal prices faster than the general level of inflation or to a greater extent than our competitors do, would result in a substantial loss of business and would therefore not be a solution to the problem."
  I now turn to the position of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association. Following a meeting on Tuesday which I bad with both sides, the association and the Electricity Council are in discussion to see whether they can find a solution within the Government's counter-inflation policy.
  Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you direct the backbenchers on the Government side to cease their private conversations so that we can hear ours?
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman of an old saying—example is better than precept.
  Mr. Boardman: As I was saying, the EPEA and the council are in discussion and I can add nothing at the moment except my hope that the talks will be successful.
  On the generation side, because of the supply difficulties of oil and coal we need to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption, and at this time of the year there is a tight margin between generating capacity and demand. This position has been exacerbated by the action of the EPEA.
  The Government are continuing to monitor the oil situation very closely, particularly in the context of the availability of other fuels, and if we see that there is a need to do so we shall not hesitate to regulate oil consumption. There is, however, every need for economy in the use of oil both by industry and by individual customers.
  The Government are determined to maintain their growth strategy. If we are to make the most of our economic opportunities and to overcome the difficulties, both sides of industry must also play their part. Among the difficulties we have to face are price increases and restrictions on oil supplies from the Middle East. We shall overcome them, provided we can rely on our indigenous resources and on the miners to go on producing our coal.
  Our counter-inflation policy is an essential part of our growth strategy and is necessary to protect the low paid, the pensioners and other individuals who suffer most from inflation. These regulations give the Government power to see that our objectives are maintained, that the law can be upheld and that the will of Parliament shall prevail over all those who seek to overthrow it for their own ends. I ask the whole House to support the Government.
  Question put an agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty deems it proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and dated 13th November 1973, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or members of Her Majesty's Household.

  EMERGENCY POWERS
  Motion made, and Question put:
  That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 by Order dated 13th November 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of section 2(4) of the said Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
  The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 278.

  Division No.7.

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bell, Ronald

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Astor, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Benyon, W.

  Bray, Ronald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone

  Biffen, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Bainiel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Blaker, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Batsford, Brian

  Body, Richard

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Buck, Antony

  Hawking, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bulls, Sir Eric

  Hay, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Burden, F. A.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Rt Hn. Graham (Crosby)

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Carlisle, Mark

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peel, Sir John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Channon, Paul

  Holland, Phillip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hornby, Richard

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

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

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cooke, Robert

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Coombs, Derek

  Hunt, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cordle, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Redmond, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  James, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Critchley, Julian

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rees-Davis, W. R.

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

  Davis, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Ridley, Hn. Nichols

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Royle, Anthony

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lane, David

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Emery, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Farr, John

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

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fell, Anthony

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Simeons, Charles

  Fidler, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Luce, R. N.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh North)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

  Foster, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Fowler, Norman

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gardner, Edward

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maude, Angus

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

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple, John M.

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gower, Raymond

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

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

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

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Green, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Tilney, Sir John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Molyneaux, James

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Money, Ernle

  Trew, Peter

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Monro, Hector

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

  More, Jasper

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Waddington, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morrison, Charles

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mudd, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Wall, Patrick

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walters, Dennis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  804

  805

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wilkinson, John

  Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mr Walter Clegg.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Younger, Hn. George

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Albu, Austen

  Ewing, Harry

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Frenyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Ashley, Jack

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ashton, Joe

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Foot, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  Austick, David

  Ford, Ben

  Machin, George

  Bagier, Gordon A. I.

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Barnes, Michael

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Freud, Clement

  Maclennan, Robert

  Baxter, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Garrett, W. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Beith, Alan

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Golding, John

  Marquand, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marsden, F.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Meacher, Michael

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Molloy, William

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hatton, F.

  Morris, Charles H. (Openshaw)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Murray, Ronald King

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Horam, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Malley, Brian

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Rt. Hn, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, Bert

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Padley, Walter

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Palmer, Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Pardoe, John

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Darling, Rt Hn. George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt Hn. Fred

  Davidson, Arthur

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Deakins Eric

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kelly, Richard

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kerr, Russell

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Richard, Ivor

  Doig, Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Rt Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roper, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  806

  807

  Silkin, Rt Hn. John (Deptford)

  Swain, Thomas

  Wellbeloved, James

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Taverne, Dick

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Sillars, James

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Silverman, Julius

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Skinner, Dennis

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Whitlock, William

  Smith John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Tinn, James

  Willey, Rt Hn. Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tope, Graham

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Steel David

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Woof, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wallace, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Strauss, Rt Hn, G. R.

  Watkins, David

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Weitzman, David

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Question accordingly agreed to

  DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Direct Grant Schools (Amendment) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1535), dated 30th August 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th September, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
  I move that motion basically for three reasons: first, to demonstrate the Government's own priorities in education spending; secondly, to establish the Opposition's priorities; and thirdly, to confirm once again—if further confirmation is necessary—the crucial differences in education philosophy which divide the Government and the Opposition.
  If we examine the proposed increases, it becomes obvious at once that what is proposed is a substantial increase indeed. In terms of pounds per year, it is substantial even by the standards of the order against which we prayed last year, and it is even more substantial in terms of normal increases in Government education expenditure which we have seen over the last year and which we expect between now and the next General Election. It offers a retrospective increase to the direct grant schools of 4 per cent., and it offers them next year an increase of 11 per cent. When he replies, perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what other areas of current education expenditure, having enjoyed a retrospective increase of 4 per cent. during the year which has just ended, can look forward to an 11 per cent. increase during the forthcoming year.
  But this is special to the hearts and minds of the Government. We ought to examine the special nature and special quality of the schools which are to receive this increase. First, we are talking about 103,000, or thereabouts, pupils. About 59,000 are recipients of the so-called free places—"so-called" because, while they are free to the pupils, they are certainly not free in the sense that they are provided free by the schools; they are paid for by local education authorities. They are described as "free" by the Public Schools
  810
  Commission, always in inverted commas, to describe that strangely ambivalent status.
  We are also talking about 49,000 pupils, or thereabouts, whose parents pay fees and who receive a subsidy for their fees which is paid through the taxes of taxpayers who may well be a great deal less well off than the recipients of the subsidies, and who may well send their children to schools which are a great deal inferior to those which they are subsidising for others.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary will say that the fees are scaled to the parental income. He ought to tell us also that the scales are such that even the man on the now, national average of £40 a week has some fee to pay. He ought—I am sure that he will—to tell us that despite the scaling and, indeed, despite the so-called free places that are provided through local authority payment, the social mix of the direct grant schools remains woefully inadequate. Indeed, the survey done for the Public Schools Commission shows that only one in 13 of direct grant school pupils comes from a household in which the head is an unskilled or a semi-skilled worker. The direct grant school population is wildly unrepresentative of the country as a whole. It is unrepresentative socially and by nature of the fact that it is part of the private education system which receives an obvious public subsidy.
  That is why it is illogical that in fee-charging schools public funds should be applied towards reducing the costs of education for pupils whose parents can well afford the full cost. That is not my judgment. It is the judgment of the Fleming Committee, reporting nearly 30 years ago, producing a report which no one would regard as radical, let alone progressive, but nevertheless strong in its condemnation of the direct grant system. Indeed, its condemnation would be even more stringent if it were examining the direct grant system now and the increase that the Government propose tonight.
  This increase is astonishing at a time when every part of the education system is gasping for funds. Hon. Members should look at the present situation about the London allowance and the announcement made this evening, at the teachers' superannuation fund, at the building cost

  811
  situation, and at the argument now taking place about the rate support grant—with carefully orchestrated leaks telling the education journalists that the Secretary of State is fighting the Treasury for every extra penny that she can get for local rates. Despite all that, the Government come forward tonight offering an 11 per cent. increase to a very selective and very elitist part of the education system. It is no wonder that the normally moderate Teachers World, talking about the Under-Secretary's speech in Liverpool a fortnight ago, described it as
  "a bad moment for the Tories to flaunt their support of the direct grant system."
  As we are talking about the flaunting habits of the Under-Secretary, I hope that he will make one point clear.
  Sir George Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman talks about flaunting, but has he not flaunted a sharp axe recently in front of everyone to provoke them?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have certainly never mixed a metaphor like that in my life. What I have done is to describe the established policy of my party. If that is flaunting it, I am proud to do so. I chose the word "flaunt" simply because that was the description of the Under-Secretary's speech by, as I say, the usually moderate and uncontentious Teachers World.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Can we take it tonight, therefore, that everything that the hon. Gentleman says represents what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says and stands for?
  Mr. Hattersley: I think we should be debating kindergartens rather than direct grant schools this evening.
  What I want to ask the Under-Secretary, as I am talking about his flaunting speech in Liverpool, is this. This is a matter of importance and substance. When we vote on the regulations this evening increasing the direct grant, we are entitled to know how many direct grant places and how many direct grant schools there will be at the end of the year, because for the first time since the war a Minister of the Crown, or at any rate an Under-Secretary, has announced the possibility of reopening the direct grant list.
  Mr. Angus Maude: On a matter of fact, surely the hon. Gentleman knows that Lord Eccles reopened the direct grant list and added schools to it when he was Minister of Education.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is why I was careful to say "announced". Lord Eccles made absolutely clear what he was going to do. The Under-Secretary made a political speech in Liverpool. I ask him to make absolutely clear tonight whether it is the Secretary of State's intention to reopen the direct grant list, because until we know this we shall not know the volume of money we are voting this evening. I make it absolutely clear to the Under-Secretary that if that was just one of his usual frolics we do not intend to make any fuss about it. If it is a serious point, we need to know about it because it is germane to the debate.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The hon. Gentleman, as usual, has not done his homework. I was repeating exactly the words used by the Secretary of State herself in the House just a year ago.
  Mr. Hattersley: Then let me ask the Under-Secretary this: is it the Secretary of State's intention to reopen the direct grant list, or was that simply a point which was made to hearten Conservative audiences?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I repeat what the Secretary of State has said, and the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—wait a minute. The Secretary of State and myself have said exactly the same thing, namely, that she is considering the question and in due course will reach a decision.
  Mr. Hattersley: I must say, if it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, that I do not think that anyone who has seen him in the House believes for one moment that he and the Secretary of State ever said different things. I suppose I should have known that we would get less than an adequate answer on that, because we have always had less than adequate answers about the Government's general policies for secondary education.

  813
  We make our attitude to the increased grant and the existence of the direct grant at all clear. After a suitable period of notice, the direct grant will be withdrawn. This is because our priorities are different from those of the Government. We are not saying for one moment that the direct grant schools are not by some standards good schools. Of course, academically, most of them are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Patronising."] I am patronising for the reason that with their benefits, class sizes and intakes they jolly well ought to be good schools. I hope that even the most enthusiastic of supporters of private education will concede that there are very many good schools in the maintained sector and that there are equally good schools working in conditions which the direct grant schools have never contemplated and would not in their present form survive.
  We want the interest, the enthusiasm and the resources of the nation to be switched towards the generality of schools. That is why we intend to vote against the increase this evening. We intend to do so because we believe, as the Public Schools Commission believed, that the argument for fee paying within the selective system does not stand analysis and we believe, as the commission believed, that the introduction of the comprehensive system makes the fee-paying system out of all possibility.
  Why, as we hold these views and as they are increasingly held in the country, will the Under-Secretary tonight defend the increase in the grant? I suppose, if his previous statements and behaviour are anything to go on, he will do so for two or three reasons. The first will concern the point he made in Liverpool, when he said that the direct grant schools built a bridge between the maintained and the independent sector. I do not believe that that concept stands up to a moment of analysis. I hope that when he replies, he will state exactly what that bridge is, what that bridge does, how that bridge is formed and exactly what its virtues are. It is very easy to create phrases of that sort, but, on analysis, it is clear that it adds up to nothing at all.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, bear in mind that a lot of his hon. Friends have been happy to cross the bridge, at least with their children.
  Mr. Hattersley: I have never quite understood what that point is supposed to mean. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are some of my hon. Friends who hold principles so well that they are prepared to vote against policies which might be in their direct personal interest, I have no doubt that that is true. Of course we are a party of principle, and we will vote for that principle.
  Let me examine the other reason which the hon. Gentleman will put forward for the maintenance and, through an extension of the grant, increase of the direct grant system. He will tell us. I am sure, as the Secretary of State has told us, that there is an increase in the demand for such schools. I am sure that is true. I am told that in my constituency there is an increasing demand for schools with new buildings, an increasing demand for schools with adequate-sized classes, an increasing demand for schools with adequate facilities, an increasing demand for playing fields near the schools to which my constituents go. If we are to have increasing demand as the only criterion, then my hon. Friends and I will want to offer the case that the £1 million or more which has been spent on this very small area of education could be better devoted to those increasing demands which meet the needs of ordinary people—the needs and the demands which are so cruelly neglected. That, we believe, ought to be the Government's overriding priority. That, we believe, ought to be why they are saving money by reducing the direct grants in these circumstances, rather than increasing them.
  Finally, it may be said by the Under-Secretary that the system which he advocates and defends this evening actually saves the public's money. I think that not even his remarkable arithmetic can produce a figure of £1,000 million in relation to the direct grant system, though I believe he has produced exactly that figure for every other proposal which the Labour Party has put forward. But I have no doubt at all that we will want to argue that, in a sense money is saved by the extension and continuation of the direct grant system. That is obviously untrue. It is certainly untrue if the direct grant system does what its supporters insist it does, which is to produce a new social mix in which pupils from all

  815
  classes and sections of the community come together, and it is certainly untrue that the direct grant schools save money if, as the Under-Secretary has argued in the past and may well argue again this evening, the demand for such schools is so considerable that parents will continue to take up the places, come what may.
  If the £8 which we are asked to approve this evening is paid, then for the so-called free places paid for by local authorities there will be £8 to be found out of local authority funds. So far as public expenditure is concerned, local and national, the position remains in balance. But if the £8 is not approved this evening, the £8 which would go to subsidise the non-free places, the payment of subsidies to the parents who are buying their way into the direct grant system, would obviously be saved to the Exchequer. I believe that it should be saved to the Exchequer and spent on schools and on children whose needs are much greater. In fact the more unrepresentative of society the direct grant system is, the more saving one could bring about by abolishing the direct grant altogether, or, indeed, by voting against the increase this evening.
  Mr. Martin McLaren: I have always been puzzled about one point. What was it that the Leader of the Opposition had in mind when he said that the direct grant schools would be abolished only over his dead body?
  Mr. Hattersley: It seems absolutely clear that hon. Gentlemen will be making this point well into the next century, and I suppose that I ought to get the quotation right for them. What it was alleged that my right hon. Friend said was that grammar schools would be closed over his dead body. What he meant, and what I hope he will go on saying and meaning, is that many of the traditions of the grammar schools ought to be saved and preserved, and that they are so worth saving and preserving that they should be available to a much larger section of the population than they are at present.
  I always find a certain degree of irony in the fact that so many of the supporters and defenders of the grammar schools on the Government benches are those who would not dream of sending their children to maintained grammar
  816
  schools. What is more, many of them would not dream of sending their children to direct grant schools.
  I believe that the more money that is saved, the more it can be demonstrated that the direct grant system is unrepresentative of society and caters for a group of the population who, were the direct grant to be removed, would choose the advantages as they see it, and the disadvantages as we see it, of independent education. I have no doubt that the demand for direct grant places amongst that group of the population—the 40 or 50 per cent. of parents who send their children there—is sufficiently elastic for them to continue to buy the direct grant place in an ex-direct grant school if the status is changed.
  The very clear policy of the Labour Party is the withdrawal of the direct grant and the decision, in time, of the direct grant governors about whether they want to become part of the increasingly popular and increasingly understood maintained comprehensive system or whether they want to go independent and bear the penalties and disadvantages that independent status involves.
  It is wrong by any standards—those of the Fleming Committee, those of the Public Schools Commission and those of every serious commentator who has judged the existence and advantages of the direct grant schools—that they should exist in this ambivalent condition, choosing small, élite section of the population either by money or by academic ability. Subsidising that small, élite section, whether they have gone to those schools by scholarship or by the length of their parents' purses, is by any social standards inadequate and indefensible. For that reason, the Opposition intend to vote against the regulations.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: Until the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) neared the end of his speech, I was not quite sure whether I should declare an interest in this debate. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that I should.
  Having been to an independent school myself, I sent both my sons to a direct grant grammar school. My daughter went to another. The hon. Gentleman

  817
  wondered how many Government supporters were prepared to send their children to direct grant grammar schools. I am at least one. For that reason, I think that I can claim to know a little about them.
  What fascinated me about the hon. Gentleman's speech was his references to the Public Schools Commission, of which there were several. He cannot have understood what it was that the two commissions said about the direct grant and the independent schools. It is one of the funniest stories in the history of education.
  The Newsom Commission debated for a long time and, with a number of minority and dissenting reports, said that the best thing to do with the independent schools was to turn them into direct grant schools. Then the commission, slightly reconstituted as the Donnison Commission, turned to deal with direct grant schools and said that they ought to be made non-selective. The Newsom Commission, having previously said that the best thing to do with the independent schools was to turn them into direct grant schools, said that some of them were so small that it was no good making them non-selective and that some would have to stay selective. But the Donnison Commission then said that what we must do with the direct grant schools is make them non-selective, and then went on to say "We realise perfectly well that the result will be that quite a number of them will turn themselves into independent schools".
  The wheel, therefore, had turned full circle. I think that four members managed to sign both reports, an event which, knowing some of the members, I should not have been surprised at, but I was. To cite Newsom or Donnison, therefore, as justifying an argument either way in respect of direct grant or independent schools is futile. The only use they had was to indicate the merits of the academic education which is provided in the schools.
  We know that the hon. Gentleman and some, though not all, members of his party have a passionate ideological antipathy to the direct grant schools partly because they are highly selective, partly because they are untidy, being neither quite independent nor quite maintained. They are—we on this side
  818
  regard this as one of their greatest merits—a bridge between the independent and the maintained sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".1 Clearly, they are, because they have a far wider social mix than the independent schools and they enable a large number of very bright working-class children to have an absolutely first-class academic education.
  It is no trouble to us on this side if the hon. Gentleman and his Friends continue to make speeches of the sort we heard from him tonight. It gains no votes for them and loses no votes for us. In every village, town and city in the land there are working-class families who have sent to these schools children who, without the direct grant schools, would never have got to university or into a profession but who have gone to the top of their trees precisely because of the direct grant system. Let the hon. Gentleman make his speeches saying that he intends to abolish them. This will do us and the direct grant schools nothing but good.
  Mr. Neville Sandelson rose—
  Mr. Maude: No, there hon. Members who wish to I had better not give way.
  Two facts ought to be recognised. First, even if hon. Members opposite do not know it, a lot of people know very well that the reaction to the wholly comprehensive non-selective school which is already felt among parents and teachers is considerable and is growing. It is essential that when that reaction reaches its peak there should be some good selective schools left, and the best of them are likely to be in the direct grant sector.
  I believe that a considerable number of independent and aided schools would like, other things being equal, to be direct grant schools, and if my right hon. Friend did reopen the direct grant list there would, again other things being equal, be quite a number of applications to join. But other things are not equal, for the simple reason that the Labour Party has announced openly several times—the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition has announced it, as has the hon. Member for Sparkbrook—that it is the party's intention, if and when it

  819
  is ever returned to power, to abolish the direct grant system.
  It is, therefore, fairly obvious that no board of governors with any sense, whether independent or aided, will go out on a limb now and ask for direct grant status if it believes that that status will be abolished in four years, two years, or whatever it might be.
  My own belief is that, if and when a Labour Government are returned, which certainly will not be for five or six years now, we shall have been able before then, with the risk of a Labour Government having been removed from the horizon, to reopen the direct grant list. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take care to try to reassure the schools that would like to enter it that they are safe for at least a whole Conservative period of power—six to 10 years, or whatever it may be. That would be enough to make not only some independent schools but quite a lot of aided schools seek direct grant status.
  I am convinced—this is not wishful thinking, but the result of talking to many parents who have had experience of neighbourhood comprehensive schools in our cities and certain comprehensive schools in rural areas—that the reaction against the totally non-selective school by parents of brighter children is growing every year. The reaction in favour of the direct grant schools is also growing, and it will grow as the years go by. The demand for more direct grant schools will grow greater.
  The hon. Gentleman can go on making his speeches at party conferences or weekend jamborees at miners' galas as much as he likes. That suits us very well. It will do his party nothing but harm and our party nothing but good. What is more important is that it will rally, among the working classes as much as among the middle and professional classes, those parents and teachers who value good education to support the places where the education is best.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is no accident that the Conservative benches are more crowded tonight than I have seen them at this hour for many years. There are more Conservative Members present for the debate
  820
  than for nearly the whole of the debate that preceded it on the state of emergency. There is nothing more likely to bring the Conservative Members out from his hole in the House than the question of privilege in education.
  We have before us a true Tory measure.
  Sir Gilbert Longden rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I will not give way.
  The regulations constitute one of the few Tory measures the Government have introduced during the past two or three years. I can understand why there are so many satisfied smiles on the faces of Conservative Members. It follows the true Tory principle that to those who already have shall be given more. It is nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to have the support of hon. Members opposite. It is nonsense in the educational world of today to talk about giving such sums to the direct grant system when there are so many other aspects of education on which the money could be far more profitably spent, to the benefit of the ordinary children.
  How can I vote for such money being given to the direct grant schools when the Secretary of State sends a circular to my local authority saying that it must postpone for several months the replacement of a very old State primary school, and when it also has to postpone urgently needed improvements to a down-town secondary school in an area of social deprivation? We have been told that the country cannot afford expenditure on urgent educational projects of that kind, yet there is money to give to those who already have.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I want to see the day when the direct grant system as such—I choose my words carefully—is done away with. It grew up largely by accident, as will be known by anyone who has studied the history of the system. I want to see it done away with as a system, because it plays no real part in education. But the basic argument against this tonight is that the Government have their priorities wrong once again. How can we support giving this sort of money in a time of shortage of educational

  821
  expenditure when we are told that money is short and is not available for other projects? How can we vote for giving more money to direct grant schools that are already wealthy?
  10.45 p.m.
  Sir George Sinclair: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) argued part of the time about things which had nothing to do with the regulations. He plainly wants merely to abolish the direct grant school.
  If parents are to have some freedom of choice in education, as I believe they should—and I shall show what I mean by that—there should be more direct grant schools. At present there are not nearly enough of them to meet the demand. There should be at least one in every local education authority area. There is a strong case on educational grounds—and many hon. Members still judge educational issues on educational grounds—for reopening and enlarging the direct grant list.
  As to freedom of parental choice in education, I am glad in this to be supported by the principle enshrined in the universal Declaration of Human Rights in which it is regarded as a fundamental human liberty.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) tell me how much freedom he thinks is enjoyed, universal Declaration of Human Rights or not, by, let us say, the children and their parents in South Birmingham who, since there is no comprehensive reorganisation, have the simple freedom to go to the nearest secondary modern school, good or bad, old or new? What does the Declaration of Human Rights have to do for them?
  Sir G. Sinclair: If freedom to move from one area to another is wiped out I regard that as a retrograde step. It is not wiped out in the direct grant schools, and one of the objections to a number of rigid neighbourhood schools is, just as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook said, that they cannot move from one area to another.
  The justification for the existence and continued operation of the direct grant schools should be academic excellence. If some schools on the list do not have
  822
  specially valuable contributions to make—and this does not always depend on size—they should make room for others.
  It is not easy to measure the academic output of a school, but, so far as it can be measured by generally accepted standards, direct grant schools have done better in terms of A level passes and university entrance than other schools, whether independent or State grammar schools. Half of those leaving direct grant schools have three or more A levels, and 63 per cent. have two or more. That is 50 per cent. better than the maintained grammar schools.
  There is a growing realisation in countries like the United States, Germany and even Russia that the comprehensive system does not meet all their education requirements at the secondary level. Their educationists think we are crazy to contemplate wiping out our selective direct grant schools or our independent schools. I agree with them. My judgment is based on my experience as chairman of the governors of a direct grant school. I see that school as serving the neighbouring countryside, which it has done for at least the last 400 years, as a centre of academic excellence. It serves families of the widest possible range of incomes and backgrounds from not only the locality but throughout the country, including that mobile section of the community—namely, the armed services. Far from being socially divisive, I know, from the letters from parents which I have seen that the school—and I am sure that there are others like it—has a well-earned reputation for dissolving social barriers and making young people there feel that they are individuals in their own right.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: The argument has largely been one of selection. This measure refers to grammar schools. I should like to know the definition of "grammar schools". Will the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) tell us how many children of Service men in the school of which he is governor are children from the other ranks and how many are the children of officers?
  Sir G. Sinclair: I should be glad to get the figures for the hon. Member. There are children of both ranks of parents. A letter, of which I learned this evening, from "other rank" parents says

  823
  that they consider that the school is not socially divisive.
  Mr. Sandelson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the achievement of a social mixture at direct grant schools. Has he examined the facts about the intake into such schools?
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member went to Westminster.
  Mr. Sandelson: Yes, I went to Westminster. I am happy to say that my children are being educated in the maintained system.
  Has the hon. Gentleman studied the facts about the intake of the direct grant schools? Is he not aware—headmasters and teachers in the direct grant schools never talk about these facts, and they are studiously ignored by all Conservative hon. Members—that the overwhelming majority of pupils in direct grant schools come from the professional and managerial classes? Is he aware that there are virtually no pupils in direct grant schools from working-class homes?
  Sir G. Sinclair: I am delighted to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). Exactly 50 per cent. of the places in the school of which I speak are provided by the local authority. That should not disappoint anybody. By contrast, the comprehensive school nearby, because of its merits, has led local house agents to advertise new properties as most desirable—and, therefore, more expensive—because they lie in the catchment area of the comprehensive school. That will lead to a movement of better-off families into the area, the raising of house prices and the exclusion of others who are less well off from the area from that school. This is just one example of how economically divisive comprehensive schools can be in their neighbourhood areas.
  I have said that direct grant schools are not socially divisive. No one is debarred from going to the school with which I am concerned by his parentage, by his background or by the neighbourhood in which he lives. The pupils are admitted by selection on academic performance and potential.
  824
  But the hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not trying to condemn direct grant schools on educational grounds. No one in his senses would want to do away with any good schools when the need for good schools is so great. There seems to me no ground for abolishing direct grant schools because they are socially divisive. They are not. On the contrary, they can contribute far more to an open society than the rigid neighbourhood schools can do.
  Surely, the only ground for the Labour Party's threat to abolish direct grant schools is that they are selective, and selection has now become anathema to its dogma. I am sure that the Labour Party will not have the country behind it if it attempts to wipe out these centres of academic excellence. I am equally sure that many of the existing direct grant schools will, in one form or another, go on serving families of all income groups in the wide areas around them, and that they will go on providing an education which will serve the nation well in an age when Britain will need the full development of her brain power.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Crossman: I have not often ventured to intervene in an education debate, but I think it might be useful to take some concrete examples and see how they work. I have been the Member for Coventry, East, for a good many years. The Labour Party captured the local authority in 1937 and sought to introduce comprehensive education.
  We have in Coventry four direct grant schools—two for boys and two for girls. The Coventry Corporation built 12 comprehensive schools, leaving the direct grant schools, on the view put forward by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that they were bridges. But what happened in practice?
  The direct grant schools skimmed off the top 8 per cent. of all the boys and girls because, of course, if one goes to parents and says, "We shall give your child a free place in a top privileged school", there is a temptation to them to agree. I am not denying that the four direct grant schools are good schools. So are the independent schools—I was at one myself. But we must not have nonsense talked about their being bridges.

  825
  If one wants to build a comprehensive system, one cannot simultaneously have in the same area a highly selective system, because the two cancel each other out. What one will get is the direct grant schools creaming off the people who go to university, and the sixth forms of the comprehensive schools not being much better than those in the secondary modern schools. I am not saying that they are not good schools. I am simply saying that that is what happens.
  We are being asked why we propose to abolish direct grant schools—but we are not seeking to abolish them. In Coventry we propose to integrate our four direct grant schools, as we did the other grammar schools, into our comprehensive system. They will provide the nucleus which will be very useful to the town, and within seven or eight years they will have become part of the comprehensive system. Our proposals will shortly be presented to the Secretary of State.
  I tell Conservative Members who speak about bridges and non-divisiveness that if they had seen, over the past 30 years, the divisive effect, in a city, of trying to combine comprehensive education with four very good direct grant schools they would not be able to talk that kind of nonsense. We have to face it—we cannot have the best of all worlds. It would be nice to feel that we could have all these different kinds of schools put together in one place and get the best. They just cancel each other out.
  Mr. Ernle Money: In deploying this argument, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Socialist-controlled Inner London Education Authority maintains one of the most expensive boarding schools in the country, at Wolverston Hall, in Suffolk?
  Mr. Crossman: I wish to heavens more education authorities maintained them. We, in Coventry, are proud to have the Coventry City Boarding School, because there are any number of special cases who benefit from a boarding school education. What I am talking about is the problem of there co-existing in the same place four intensively selective schools.
  Perhaps the distinguishing feature of the direct grant schools was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who praised them for the high
  826
  number of A levels they secure. A lot of them are intellectual cramming institutions, whereas the independent schools have a more liberal tradition and do not cram as much because they do not have to collect their people by saying, "We shall give you results." Many direct grant schools are the most intensive examples of cramming in the country.
  The other objection is that we want freedom of choice. In Coventry we do not have freedom of choice, because we do not have a genuine comprehensive school to choose. It is not possible to have a system in which people are able to choose between direct grant and comprehensive, because these two animals do not co-exist. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want comprehensive education; they want a tri-partite system of education in which children are segregated.
  Sir G. Sinclair: The right hon. Gentleman is entering a cloud-cuckoo-land of the future.
  Mr. Crossman: I am describing the past 30 years.
  Sir G. Sinclair: The right hon. Gentleman said that comprehensive schools could not co-exist with direct grant schools. The two schools of which I spoke are divided by a road. Both are very good indeed.
  Mr. Crossman: I am not saying that it is impossible to have a single example. I am saying that in a city the size of Coventry we have tried it and found it impossible, because of the skimming process.
  People cannot live in a world where they choose between the education of the previous 400 years and the modern, comprehensive kind of education. They must move one way or the other. It would be sensible for the Tories to talk with some practical experience of the way in which direct grant schools or comprehensive schools work. In our area of North Oxfordshire—a reactionary Conservative area, which has excellent comprehensive education—the direct grant school, the Banbury Grammar School, had to be taken over to form the nucleus of the comprehensive school. Thank Heaven we did that. Everyone has forgotten about the direct grant school.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman must know that is not true. Banbury Grammar School was not a direct grant grammar school; it was a maintained grammar school.
  Mr. Crossman: I was trying to improve the argument.
  Sir G. Sinclair: A shamefully unacademic distortion.
  Mr. Crossman: If I have been guilty of shameful and unacademic distortion I must add that I am a product of an independent school. I have made it clear that it is impossible for them to co-exist. We are bound to hope for their integration.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) admittedly has a difficulty in his constituency. I accept that if there are four very good direct grant schools fairly close together it will be hard straight away to mount an effective comprehensive system. I concede that at once, but that is not happening everywhere in the country. An area either has the luck or the misfortune to be somewhat exceptional. It may be that Bristol is in much the same position.
  I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in putting the theory to the doctrinal extreme. He said that we would need a 100 per cent. intake in the comprehensive system to have a genuine comprehensive school. In logic that is correct, but, in my view, it is neither necessary nor desirable. Some of the best examples of the comprehensive system working are in the United States of America. In New York 7 per cent. of the children attend schools other than comprehensives, and the comprehensives do not suffer.
  In the longer term the theory of the pool of ability comes into the matter. If the comprehensive system is all that it is said to be, it will in time generate its own sixth form, because that is part of the doctrine and theory of discovering and developing ability.
  What always surprises me when these orders come before the House is the almost pathological hatred by hon. Gentlemen opposite of any idea of selection and fee paying. I rest the
  828
  argument for some retention of this system on the simple doctrine of freedom and the desire and necessity of having as varied an educational system as possible. I believe that it is possible for a comprehensive system to work with a limited number of selective schools, many of which will be direct grant schools.
  If the Opposition were right in their criticisms, I should expect local education authorities to be as hostile to direct grant schools as they themselves. But, far from taking up only the first 25 per cent. of places in direct grant schools, local education authorities have exercised their options to take up the second 25 per cent. as well. Indeed, they have gone beyond that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, speaking at Liverpool, pointed out that local education authorities are taking up 58 per cent. of the places in direct grant schools.
  The Opposition also dislike any element of fee paying. I find this curious in Britain. Earlier today, at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, I was listening to a debate about European schools with a very mixed intake—some of it highly selective and the rest nonselective. There was plenty to talk about. However, the fact is that modest fees are charged to the parents of some pupils there, and, as far as I am aware, no one objects.
  Now, coming back to the House of Commons, I find this extraordinary animosity against that system. I can only suppose that it arises from the feeling that it is wrong for a parent to spend any money to try to advance his child's prospects. This is probably what the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) had in mind when he talked of educational privilege. But if parents are educationally sympathetic they will seek to give their children such opportunities as they can. Indeed, they will move to try to get within the catchment area of a good comprehensive school. This is a fact of life and of human nature, and it seems idle to try to deny it. The schools are popular because they give some freedom of choice. I see them as a bridge between having to pay full fees in an independent school, which are high, and having completely free provision in the maintained sector.

  829
  By her revision of last year the scale of income for parental contribution to fees my right hon. Friend brought the contribution down to nil where assessable income is below, £1,000 a year, and full fees are not paid until the assessable income is £4,000. That bracket includes a wide range of people, bearing in mind that average earnings are now £2,300 a year.
  There are many more not very rich parents who, if they wished, could seek places in direct grant schools. It is a fact that managerial classes perhaps tend to seek it first. They have the tradition, and they make the effort, but many other parents could do so if they wished, and, in my judgment, more and more are likely to do so in future. That is why there is a growing demand.
  Miss Joan Lestor: The hon. Gentleman is basing his defence of the system on the need to give freedom of choice to a minority of parents to buy a better education, as he calls it, for their children. Can he explain why working-class taxpayers should subsidise that freedom of choice?
  Mr. Hill: I do not think that working-class taxpayers are subsidising this freedom. The freedom is to have different systems working and not suppressed. The freedom is to have an alternative which is available provided a certain sacrifice and effort are made. It may be that some parents would rather send their children to one of these schools than have a car.
  It seems to me that, with the revision of the scale of parental contribution, it is worth reconsidering whether the quartile of free places is relevant to modern conditions, and whether it might be better to make all the places subject to parental contributions.
  There is no remission of fees for boarders. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned the importance of boarding school education. I hope, therefore, that the question of including boarding places within the ambit of the fees remission scheme will be considered.
  11.14 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I think the House is delighted to have the opportunity to
  830
  debate private education, albeit on the rather narrow grounds of the regulations governing direct grant schools.
  Some may think it odd that the Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who with a few characteristic glosses from his Leader has determined to abolish the private sector, has not given the House an opportunity to debate that policy. We should welcome it if the Opposition chose to give time for it. It is the hon. Gentleman's policy, not ours. It is odder still that that has not been done in view of the hon. Gentleman's non-stop appearances on television—[Interruption]—I must follow my Shadow—including his Sunday cliffhanger on the private schools.
  The oddest contribution of all came when the hon. Member reproached me for saying the same thing as my Secretary of State. No one ever made that reproach of him during his tenure of office as Under-Secretary to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). She was always wondering what he would say next.
  We are grateful indeed, however, that the Leader of the Opposition, nailing the hon. Member for Sparkbrook firmly to the mast, has allowed us to have this debate tonight. We on the Government side of the House are delighted that the Secretary of State is asking the House to raise the grant to these excellent schools. This contrasts very sharply with the shabby behaviour of the Opposition. When they broke faith with the direct grant schools they were afraid to do away with them, but in 1968 they cut their grant by nearly 50 per cent. It was one of the first acts of the present Government to restore that grant, and the raising of the grant tonight is the logical continuation of that policy.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has made it clear—he has put the case very honestly, as honestly as he is capable of putting it—that there is no argument tonight on the practicalities of this issue, that this is an argument on principle, and that the Opposition are voting against the whole principle of the direct grant school system when voting on these regulations.
  It is important to examine the arguments, such as they have been, which

  831
  have been raised against the direct grant school system this evening. A principal argument that we have heard from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), is that this system subsidises those who can afford to pay. This was a point made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) in a characteristic intervention from the Dispatch Box. If one takes the capitation grant alone and lays all stress on that, of course one gets a distorted picture of the direct grant school system because that is looking at it only from the point of view of the schools and the benefit that they get. But if one is looking at the bargain that has been struck, one must look at the other side of the bargain, which is the benefit that accrues to local authorities.
  In return for this capitation grant, local authorities get 25 per cent. of the places free for maintained primary pupils, and a further 25 per cent. are reserved for their pupils. Nearly 60 per cent. of pupils at direct grant schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) pointed out, are pupils from local authorities.
  A further point which is relevant to the capitation fee is that if the local authorities do not take up those places the schools have to take them up and they have to pay the fees of those pupils. So that again makes a counterbalancing consideration to the question of the capitation fee.
  A second major matter is involved here if one is to get a fair view of the situation. These schools charge modest fees to those of moderate means. The average fee of these schools is, on the whole, under £200. But in addition there is a sliding scale, which means that those of smaller incomes pay much less than those of larger incomes. If one has an income of under £1,000, one pays nothing. On an income of under £2,000 a year one pays only £66. There are larger reductions if a person has more than one child at a direct grant school. Here again, help is given to those who need it.
  The third point made by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook was that the social mix was woefully inadequate in these schools. I would not pitch the
  832
  reply to this argument at too high a level. The hon. Gentleman pitched it too low. I make, however, this claim for the direct grant schools, that they have a wider social mix than most independent schools and neighbourhood comprehensive schools. That gives them a unique character which is worth preserving.
  If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the social mix in these schools, he might reflect that we are not being helped in getting a wider social mix by those Labour-controlled councils which for doctrinaire reasons refuse to take up their places in the schools. The Inner London Education Authority has seven direct grant schools in its area but has hardly taken up one place in those schools. So much for the first argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: In addition to not taking up places in these schools, the ILEA is sending its children home from school because it cannot provide enough education for them. Is not that a valid argument for the continuation of these schools?
  Mr. Marks: Does that mean that there are empty places in direct grant schools in the ILEA area?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I may intervene for a moment, that is another debate and I will not be drawn into it in the very few moments remaining to me.
  The second argument, if it can be called an argument, advanced by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook was his distortion of the conclusions of the Donnison Report and the Fleming Report. The hon. Gentleman's distortions of the Fleming Report were exposed by Sir Robert Birley in The Times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) pointed out that the hon. Gentleman had grotesquely distorted the conclusion of the Donnison Report.
  The real reason why these schools are being destroyed by the Opposition is not that they are bad, but that they are good. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 12th October, if she doubled the number of direct grant schools tomorrow she still could not meet the demand for this type of education.
  Perhaps the oddest argument of all we have heard tonight was when the hon.

  833
  Member for Sparkbrook said that he found it strange that supporters of grammar schools on this side should not send their own children to grammar schools. I have no means of knowing how many of my hon. Friends send their children to grammar schools. If there is one thing odder than that fact—if it be a fact—it is that so many prominent members of the Labour Party should use direct grant schools for their children when they are advocating their destruction.
  Mr. Hattersley: Who?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, for example, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for another, while the Leader of the Labour Party sent his children to an independent school. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman groaning. It was the hon. Gentleman who raised this point. I am giving him his answer in kind.
  The arguments for continuing and raising the grants for these schools are substantial. First, they provide a choice within the education system. That is worth preserving. Nothing was more significant than the sneers and jeers that greeted my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) when he referred to parental rights. Hon. Members opposite care nothing for parental rights. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members are right when they say that the direct grant schools provide a bridge between the maintained and private schools because of their composition, and, furthermore, they provide the talented school child who may be trapped in a bad neighbourhood school with a means of escape. They help us also to meet the special needs in boarding education.
  I was glad that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) mentioned the position of the armed forces. It was the hon. Member for Sparkbrook who misled people the other day when he said that the boarding allowances given in the forces were such that other ranks were unable to take them up and give boarding education to their children. He has not answered the two letters that he has had on the subject from the Ministry of Defence. Will he now withdraw that inaccuracy?
  Mr. Hattersley: If I said what the hon. Gentleman says I said, then I can be the first to withdraw it. Since I was the Minister who was responsible for the military salaries, I was one of the people who put up the boarding allowance. That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that I have had two letters from the Minister of State and I have already had two conversations with his hon. Friend. If he wants to proceed in this way, I think he has an obligation in honour to get his facts right.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will, and, anticipating that challenge, I have the transcript of what the hon. Gentleman said. This is what he said:
  "When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, we enabled officers in Her Majesty's Forces to send their children to independent schools but, alas, we did not make that possible for other ranks."
  At the time when the hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Defence there were 2,000 other ranks taking up boarding allowances and having boarding education for their children. I leave that point. It has been established. I would not have raised it if it had not been for the intervention of the hon. Member for Gorton.
  The third point which is in favour of the continuation of grants to these schools is that they are centres of excellence and some of them have national reputations—such as Manchester Grammar School and the Merchant Taylors School in Liverpool. The best reason of all for increasing these grants is that they are under attack from the Opposition, and these schools need to be shown that they are supported by the Government. A comparatively small sum is involved—only £800,000. In an educational budget which is moving towards £,000 million, this is not a great deal of money, but there is an important principle at stake here; namely, the whole future and nature of our educational system.
  The hon. Gentleman put his attitude to direct grant schools in its right context of the Opposition's education policy as a whole. First, the direct grant schools are to be snuffed out—we know that now; then, as he has also said, within a few days of the return of a Labour Government any local authority which declines to be totally "comprehensivised"

  835
  will be deprived of its secondary building programme; and, thirdly, the private schools are to be done away with.
  We know that there are some local authorities which will be only too willing to co-operate with a Government of that complexion and of that view. We have not forgotten on this side of the House how the ILEA dismissed this autumn every Conservative councillor from the governing bodies of 27 voluntary-aided grammar schools for one reason only, that they were members of the Conservative Party. There is an indication of what lies in store and what this policy is designed to do; it is not designed to get rid of any silly snobbery; it is designed to move towards a totally State-centred and controlled system of education.
  The issue tonight, therefore, is small in cash—it would amount to £30 for every
  maintained school in the country—but it is great in principle. What is at issue here is the freedom of the parent to choose the education for his child, the freedom of the teacher to follow his profession and to practise it as he likes, and the freedom of the school to achieve and maintain standards of excellence. By supporting these regulations tonight the House of Commons, whose prerogative it is, will strike a blow in what will be a long, mighty and continuing battle.
  Mr. Marks: I asked the Under-Secretary of State to define the grammar schools. He has not done so. Will he do so before the debate ends?
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes, 161.

  Division No. 8.

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hamling, William

  Murray, Ronald King

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Barnes, Michael

  Hattersley, Roy

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hatton, F.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pendry, Tom

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Booth, Albert

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

  Prescott, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn, (Leeds, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roper, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rose, Paul B.

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Cronin, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Leonard, Dick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silverman, Julius

  Davis, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Strang, Gavin

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  McBride, Neil

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Machine, George

  Swain, Thomas

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Maclennan, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Edelman, Maurice

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tuck, Raphael

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ellis, Tom

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Eric G.

  English, Michael

  Marsden, F.

  Watkins, David

  Evans, Fred

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Wellbeloved, James

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Foot, Michael

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Ford, Ben

  Milne, Edward

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. James A. Dunn.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Astor, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Raison, Timothy

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Austick, David

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Awdry, Daniel

  Holland, Philip

  Redmond, Robert

  Beith, Alan

  Hordern, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Benyon, W.

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Biffen, John

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  James, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Body, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Bowden, Andrew

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Bray, Ronald

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Brocklebank-Flower, Christopher

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Buck, Antony

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Carlisle, Mark

  Le Marchant, Spencer

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

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Soref, Harold

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Spence, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Luce, R. N.

  Sproat, Iain

  Cooke, Robert

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Cooper, A. E.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Cormack, Patrick

  McLaren, Martin

  Steel, David

  Crouch, David

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Dixon, Piers

  Madel, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Drayson, G. B.

  Mather, Carol

  Sutcliffe, John

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Farr, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Moate, Roger

  Tilney, Sir John

  Fidler, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Tope, Graham

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Money, Ernle

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Trew, Peter

  Fowler, Norman

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fry, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Neave, Airey

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gray, Hamish

  Nott, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Green, Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Pardoe, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Peel, Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Mr. John Stradling Thomas and

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Marcus Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Seventeen Members.
  And the Committee was nominated of the Attorney-General, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Edward du Cann, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Sir Elwyn Jones, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. James Prior, Sir David Renton, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Robin Turton, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, and Mr. Harold Wilson.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Ordered,
  That six be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Hicks.]

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

    LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT
    11.40 p.m.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I welcome this opportunity to raise what is a very pressing problem affecting my constituency and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies), Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) and many others throughout Wales. It is the problem of low-flying exercises by military aircraft, causing considerable disturbance, irritation and, in a farming community, frequent damage.
    In my opinion, it is an increasing problem. From the latest figures, there seems to have been an escalation in the number of such exercises in Central and South-West Wales. The latest figures show that in September 1973 there were well over 600 individual flights. That gives a figure of about 7,500 low-flying military exercises over South-West Wales in a year. The figure for 1972 was about 5,000. I am sure that the Minister will make a point about this later.
    Numerous cases have been presented to the Ministry. Complaints have been raised by local authorities, the two farmers' unions in my constituency, and various individuals. A case history is being accumulated.
    The more that I look at the response to individual cases, the more convinced I become that the situation is totally unsatisfactory and that either the Ministry of Defence is ill-informed about the area where such flights occur or there is a flagrant flouting of the regulations.
    Since I last raised the matter three years ago, the repeated claim of the Ministry has been that Carmarthen is suited for low-level exercises which are designed to make detection by radar-controlled defence systems as difficult as possible because it is an area of the United Kingdom where
    "… population is least dense and most widely scattered."
    I was told that on 8th November 1971. I was told in a subsequent letter dated 9th February 1972:
    840
    "Urban centres are avoided and so also, as far as possible, are villages and even smaller communities."
    I intend to concentrate on that assertion, and I say first that it is totally untrue. As a letter dated 30th November 1971 states clearly, the Amman Valley and the Gwendraeth Valley are areas where low-flying exercises occur. No one knowing those areas could claim that they are sparsely populated. One can travel for 30 miles from Brynamman to Kidwelly and pass through village after village. These are village communities, over which these flights are not supposed to occur.
    The letter of 9th February 1972 also refers to "urban centres". I was told in a recent letter that the town of Carmarthen is a prohibited area specifically excluded from low-flying exercises, and that since 1967 the South-West Wales General Hospital has also been excluded because of the disturbance caused by these exercises. Despite this, in September and October of this year the group secretary of the hospital had to write to the Ministry of Defence complaining bitterly about two flights which occurred in that period.
    I can testify personally that flights take place in and around Carmarthen town. The Minister wrote to me on 5th November, and he said in his last paragraph:
    "You mention that our aircraft fly directly over the area where you live. This, I believe, is Tanerdy, on the north-eastern outskirts of Carmarthen".
    He has the name of the place right, but Tanerdy is a district within Carmarthen itself. It is part of the town. In fact, it is between the town centre and the hospital, and in speaking of a district of Carmarthen and of the hospital one is speaking of places within a mile of one another. I hope that the Minister will look at that again.
    There are prohibited areas and there are low-flying regulations. How are they enforced? How does the Ministry police the regulations? How does it know whether a pilot goes beyond what the regulations allow, and if he transgresses on to the prohibited areas what is the method of policing?
    Having been the Member for Carmarthen for some time now, I know that transgressions take place, in spite of the regulations. I can testify personally from

    841
    experience during the last four months—and other evidence has accumulated over the years—that the regulations are being flouted over Carmarthen town and the hospital.
    I come now to the problem for farmers—an acute and growing problem. To many, it is a financial problem. From the two farmers' unions in my constituency I have had a lengthy list of complaints, with names and addresses and the dates when aircraft flew low over farms. The great bone of contention for the farming community is the great delay on the part of the Ministry of Defence in dealing with claims for compensation, and the lengths that farmers are expected to go to try to prove that aircraft actually flew low over their land on certain dates.
    I have said that I am convinced that pilots flout the regulations. I can give chapter and verse for one particular case, but I shall not do so now. In a letter dated 24th August 1971 the Ministry expressed doubt about the existence of a flight at that time and date, and said:
    "Meanwhile, attempts to identify the aircraft were unsuccessful, but on the evidence available the Claims Commission were prepared to accept that they belonged to the Crown."
    In the first part of that sentence, the Ministry says that the aircraft did not exist, but in the second part it is prepared to accept that they belonged to the Crown.
    I could cite cases in which the facts have been difficult to prove, although the evidence would have been obvious if the Ministry were prepared to accept what was stated to it. In matters of this kind, there must be more flexibility. The Ministry must be more lenient, and in such circumstances be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the farmer. At the moment, I have one case of a farmer who is putting in a claim for £2,000, and this after a claim was granted last year for a significant amount. The cost burden is tremendous.
    A minister of religion in my constituency was able to give the number of an offending aircraft—WJ 641—and the Ministry accepted that that flight took place. But it is amazing that a man can actually pick out the number of an aircraft and know that the flight took place.
    The Ministry argues that people in rural areas get accustomed to it all. No
    842
    one gets accustomed to the speed. In 10 minutes, these aircraft cross four counties—eight miles in a minute, and 200 feet above ground level. No one can get accustomed to the suddenness of it.
    I want to mention the bombing range in Pembrey, which is involved with Kidwelly, a part of my constituency. The town is supposed to be a prohibited area for such flights, but I can vouch that flights take place over it at 2,000 feet. There is a constant bombardment of flights over the town when the weather is fine, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Is the burden on Wales fair? Eighteen per cent. of military flying exercises take place over Wales and forty-five per cent. of the Welsh complaints concerning such flights are from South-West Wales. Therefore, the burden for South-West Wales is completely disproportionate. Does the Minister agree that the rate of flights over South-West Wales seems to be increasing? My information is, that the number has risen from about 5,000 in 1972 to 7,000 a year now. Will he give a categorical assurance that Carmarthen and the West Wales Hospital will, in practice and not just in theory, in a particular regulation, be prohibited areas from now on?
    On the question of compensation, will the hon. Gentleman give greater benefit of the doubt and more flexibility when dealing with farmers?
    With regard to the Gwendraeth Valley, has there been an actual decrease in 1973 as a result of Brawdy being retained? In November 1971, I was promised that there would be a decrease by 1973 as a result of the concentration on Brawdy. Has that happened? Finally, will the Minister consider a meeting of his officials or himself with farmers and local authorities from Dyfed to discuss this whole vexed matter?
    11.52 p.m.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) on his success in the ballot, which has given him an opportunity that has eluded many of us who are Members for Mid-Wales and South-West Wales. I completely endorse what he has said about his constituency, which applies to many other constituencies of Mid-Wales and South Wales, including mine.

    843
    The interference with amenity suffered by the people of the area is great. The Minister may be able to show by statistics for flights over the whole of Britain that the concentration in a fairly limited area in that part of Wales is considerable, exceeding that in any other part of the United Kingdom. The grave interference with amenity has now reached intolerable proportions.
    There is also a substantial element of injustice. Different figures have been given at different times by different Ministers. The figure given to my hon. Friend for flights over Wales is 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. The figure I received was 10 per cent. It matters not. Wales has 4·9 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, and one thing is quite clear, that the percentage of flights over Wales is well in excess of that 4·9 per cent. Unless it is reduced to that level, there will be no justice for the people of Wales in that regard.
    Thirdly, there is a substantial element of peril. The Minister told me in reply to a parliamentary Question a few days ago that in the past 10 years in low-level flights by fixed-wing aircraft there have been no fewer than 23 crashes. Low-flying aircraft still fly over populated areas. The day will come, as sure as fate, when one of them will come down on a populated area. There will be a swath of death and destruction. Everybody will be sorry after the event. The time to act is now.
    In view of the real peril and the substantial interference with amenity, we ask that a Royal Commission should be established to ascertain the facts, to show the element of peril that exists, and the inequitable way in which Wales is treated in this connection. We believe that once those facts were published they would speak loudly in condemnation of the present position.
    11.55 p.m.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: I intervene briefly in the debate, and I am obliged to the Minister for giving me a moment to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) on the case that he has presented and I emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has done, that other
    844
    areas adjacent to the Carmarthenshire coast suffer the same problem. In his Department the Minister will find a large file of correspondence from me dealing with complaints from districts in my constituency, but tonight I have time to touch on only two of these districts.
    The first place is the Gower Peninsula. Low-flying aircraft over the Llangennith and Rhossili areas have been the cause of complaints for a long time. The indication is that the aircraft come from Pembrey, which has been referred to. Not only do they affect cattle; they are a frightening experience for all the inhabitants and holidaymakers on the beaches in the summer months.
    Not long ago I submitted to the Department full details of low-flying aircraft over the village of Alltwen, near Pontardawe, in the Swansea Valley. These areas are quite heavily populated. Great care has been taken by the villagers to monitor both the time of the flights and their location but the explanation received from the Ministry was most unsatisfactory. I therefore join my hon. Friends in urging the Minister to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan has pressed for a Royal Commission. We are all pressing the Minister for the subject to be given the serious attention it deserves.
    11. 57 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) on his success in gaining time for tonight's debate and in getting through it with a very nasty voice, which I imagine he got at Cardiff Arms Park on Saturday. I welcome, too, the interventions by the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies).
    I greatly regret the inconvenience which is sometimes caused by low-flying aircraft. I know that it can be an alarming experience to witness a high-performance jet aircraft flying very low. But I should like to explain why there is such a pressing need for low-flying training.
    The Services fly at low level not because it is fun—pilots will tell you that it is a most testing experience—but because it is an essential part of the tactical

    845
    armoury of a modern air force. Members will be aware, in the first place, that NATO has moved in recent years to a strategy of flexible response which places greater emphasis on the rôle and use of conventional forces.
    In air defence, in particular, recent years have seen the development of very sophisticated radar systems and equipment, particularly missiles. There has been a vivid illustration of this development in recent weeks. To counter these developments, air forces have increasingly concentrated on tactics to exploit the weakest area of the defence system—its ability to detect and track aircraft flying very low. Hon. Members with technical knowledge will know that at very low angles of sight, ground features and problems of electronic interference make it difficult for radars to pick up low, fast-flying aircraft in time to allow guns or missiles to engage successfully. Given the limited ranges available to ground radars against low-level targets, there is really very little time for the defence to detect, track and engage a target before it passes out of range. Moreover, the lower the aircraft flies the less time the defence has.
    As I have said, the development of low-flying techniques is common to most major air forces—not merely the Royal Air Force—and applies not only in the NATO context. I do not want, tonight, to go into the lessons of the recent Arab-Israeli war—indeed, it may be some months before we are able to isolate the true lessons—but at this moment we have no reason to believe that low-level tactics are in any way outmoded. Indeed, the contrary is the case.
    Terrain following and navigation at very low level are extremely difficult techniques to master. Even the most experienced pilot needs to practice them constantly in order to maintain his skills at the high level of professional efficiency required by the Royal Air Force's allotted rôle in national defence. Given, then, that a very great deal of low-flying training must take place, the problem is "where?"
    The progressive loss of facilities overseas has inevitably restricted the opportunities open to the Services for low-level training outside Europe. Those RAF units stationed in Germany conduct most
    846
    of their low-flying training in that country, but it is not to be imagined that any significant additional facilities in Europe could be obtained from our NATO allies without our extending to them an offer of reciprocal facilities in the United Kingdom; they, after all, have environmental interests of their own. In short, the great majority of our low-level flights must, under present conditions, take place within the British Isles.
    Ideally we should, of course, like to confine this form of training to uninhabited areas. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible. There is none of sufficient size for the purpose. With aircraft travelling at the speeds which modern tactics require, a flight has to extend over a considerable distance if it is to last long enough for it to have the right training value. However, we do the best we can by limiting such activity to rural areas where the density of population is lowest and keeping it well away from the more intensively settled residential and industrial localities.
    I do not disguise from the House, however, that there is a considerable problem in finding suitable airspace for this kind of training. Room has to be found for about 150,000 low-level sorties every year—that is, about 500 every working day—and in a tightly packed country like Britain this is no easy matter. As I have said, we avoid the more densely populated regions and we have to avoid a wide variety of locations on grounds of flight safety. The areas around civil and military airfields, atomic energy installations and Army firing ranges all fall into this category.
    The result is that the choice of location for low flying is severely restricted, and all suitable areas, amounting to a little less than a half of the land area of Britain, must be employed. This means that there is no scope for giving any of these districts a rest by drawing additional areas into temporary use. The only way in which a close season for low flying could be introduced in the areas concerned would be by making a corresponding increase in the intensity of activity at other times of the year. This I would not consider desirable, either on environmental or safety grounds.
    I regret that I must tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen that among the areas

    847
    of Britain which are suitable for low flying on both safety and population grounds is Carmarthenshire. Let me illustrate this point with some figures. The average population density of Britain according to the 1971 census was 94 persons per 100 acres. The average for Wales was only 53 and for Carmarthenshire 28. In fact, the Carmarthen-shire figure was only one-fifth of the English average. Fewer people are affected by low flying in the county of Carmarthen, therefore, than would be the case in most other areas.
    It has been argued occasionally that this should be seen as a case for reducing low flying over these parts of Wales, but that argument is to the effect that the amount of low flying should be directly proportional to population, and I cannot take that view. This training is essential, and as we wish to inconvenience as few people as possible we must use less densely populated areas, for otherwise we would be flying over Cardiff, perhaps, or central London or other densely populated places.
    From what I have said about the general suitability of Carmarthenshire for low-level flying, hon. Members might have assumed that a high proportion of all Service low-level activity takes place there. This is not the case. The whole of Central and South-West Wales together is host to only about 6 per cent. of all low-level training flights—and, of course, many of these will be in parts of the region outside Carmarthenshire. So, despite the fact that, on average, some 500 low-level flights take place every working day, I doubt whether many of the hon. Member's constituents see, on average, more than one or two of them. I assure him that there is no ground for supposing that the intensity of flying has been increased over recent months or years.
    Mr. Jones: There were 640 day flights in Central and South-West Wales in September 1973 according to the letter which the Minister wrote last week. Does that accord with what he said?
    Mr. Kershaw: I think the figures will be found to be compatible if checked.
    One way of assessing the reasonableness or otherwise of the low-flying programme over a particular area is to
    848
    compare the proportion of all low-level flights that takes place in that area with the proportion it represents of the land area of the country. Wales covers 9 per cent. of the area of Britain—about 8,000 square miles out of 88,000. The number of low-level flights conducted there during recent years has varied between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. of the total. It is clear, therefore, that the Principality has been receiving very much its fair share; no less, certainly, but no more, either.
    To this the hon. Member may reply: "Yes, but what is the situation over Carmarthenshire alone? Surely it gets far more than its fair share?" But by the very nature of the flying it is not possible to produce meaningful figures for a unit as small as an individual county. From an aeronautical point of view county boundaries have no significance and aircrew rarely confine their flight to a single county. Without breaking each flight down by local authority area—which would be an impossible task—it is not possible to say what proportion of all low flying is conducted within a particular county. I can assure the House that I have no reason to believe that the intensity of low-level activity over Carmarthenshire is in any way disproportionate as compared with other relatively sparsely populated rural areas.
    Routes are chosen with great care and pilots are briefed to avoid all built-up areas so far as possible. Regrettably, it is quite impossible to guarantee every small community, still less individual houses, immunity from being overflown on occasion, since the achievement of high speed has necessarily meant some loss of manoeuvrability, and the constant changes of course required would not only be difficult to achieve, but positively dangerous.
    In the case of larger communities some more definite protection is possible, and their names are written into our flying regulations as places whose overflight at low level is absolutely forbidden. I am not saying that people in such communities will never hear a low-flying aircraft—especially if they live close to the edge of the built-up area—but their homes should not be directly overflown.
    One of the problems which we face is that members of the public are generally not experts in assessing the speed, height

    849
    and flight path of an aircraft. Seen from the ground, an aircraft travelling at 250 feet above ground level and 420 knots, which is 485 mph, may seem dangerously low. The danger is more apparent than real, however. Military flying is as safe as we can make it, both for the aircrew and for those on the ground, and accidents during low-level training are, in fact, remarkably rare. If, for whatever reason, one should occur, the circumstances are examined exhaustively.
    Pilots may not fly where and as they like. They are bound by strict and comprehensive regulations. If hon. Members have specific complaints about low flying I shall be glad if they will let me know exactly how it arose. I shall then have the matter investigated as a matter of discipline within the RAF.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, there have been 23 accidents below 2,000 feet during the last 10 years. I am now referring to fixed-wing aircraft. If 2,000 feet is taken as a guide for such accidents, that is not a level at which low flying training—
    Mr. Elystan Morgan rose—
    Mr. Kershaw: I have two more minutes. The Ministry of Defence is empowered to pay compensation. We have close liaison with the National Farmers Union and the Claims Commission. I am afraid that it takes rather a lot of time to get the claims worked out because we are dispensing the public's money and we have to find witnesses and have every case properly proved. I am sorry that delays take place. If there is any particular case which an hon. Member wishes to raise, I shall be glad to consider it.
    In the course of these remarks I have not been able to deal with the problems raised by the Pembrey range, or Brawdy. I will look into those matters and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
    Low-flying techniques are of great importance to learning modern concepts of war in the air and therefore they must be practised by the aircrews. Every
    850
    effort is made, however, to minimise the impact of low flying on local residents. Carmarthenshire is better suited to this form of activity than many places in Britain from an environment point of view. Nevertheless, only a small proportion of all low-level sorties take place there.
    In the light of the facts, I am unable, I fear, to accede to the hon. Member's requests that low flying should be discontinued or reduced in his constituency. I know that the noise made by low-flying aircraft is very considerable and often intolerable, especially when they pass directly overhead, and that the onset of the noise is often so sudden as to be quite startling. For those who live in the areas concerned and are sensitive to aircraft noise I have, therefore, the greatest sympathy. I also know, however, that low-flying training is of vital importance to our national defence. I hope that when, in future, the people of Carmarthenshire in particular, and Cardiganshire and Gower, see service aircraft engaged on these exercises they will regard them not as a nuisance but as a symbol of their country's determination to maintain its armed forces at a level of skill and effectiveness which is second to none in the world.
    I apologise to hon. Members for having gone rather quickly. I wanted to say as much as I could in the time available.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The people of Wales fully appreciate the need for military training by way of low-contour flying, but it is widely felt, in view of what has been said by the Minister, that Wales has been singled out for punishment—
    The Question Navin; been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Population and Food Supplies
  Population and Food Supplies
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Pest Control
  Pest Control
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Beam Trawling
  Beam Trawling
  Fishery Protection Service
  Fishery Protection Service
  Aldrin and Dieldrin
  Aldrin and Dieldrin
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Motor Vehicles (Alternative Power Sources)
  Motor Vehicles (Alternative Power Sources)
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Productive Capacity
  Productive Capacity
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Taxation and Incomes
  Taxation and Incomes
  Purchase Tax Rebates
  Purchase Tax Rebates
  Tax Yield
  Tax Yield
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Industrial Taxation
  Industrial Taxation
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Trade Balance
  Trade Balance
  Public Debt (External Loans)
  Public Debt (External Loans)
  Investment
  Investment
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Road Traffic Speed Limits (Enforcement)
  Road Traffic Speed Limits (Enforcement)
  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Charities
  Charities
  Children (Accidental Poisoning)
  Children (Accidental Poisoning)
  British Nationality (Applications)
  British Nationality (Applications)
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Battered Children
  Battered Children
  Urban Programme (Lambeth)
  Urban Programme (Lambeth)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  EEC Commission
  EEC Commission
  Caribbean Development Bank
  Caribbean Development Bank
  COMMONWEALTH SUGAR
  COMMONWEALTH SUGAR
  MORTGAGES
  MORTGAGES
  NORTH SEA OIL
  NORTH SEA OIL
  POLITICAL PARTIES (FINANCE)
  POLITICAL PARTIES (FINANCE)
  COAL MINING AREAS
  COAL MINING AREAS
  CHILE
  CHILE
  FARMWORKERS (PAY)
  FARMWORKERS (PAY)
  EEC COUNTRIES
  EEC COUNTRIES
  REDUNDANT CHURCH SITES
  REDUNDANT CHURCH SITES
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Publications (Liverpool)
  Government Publications (Liverpool)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teaching the Deaf
  Teaching the Deaf
  Primary and Secondary Pupils
  Primary and Secondary Pupils
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Primary Schools (Guisborough)
  Primary Schools (Guisborough)
EMPLOYMENT
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Ambulance Drivers' Dispute (Essex)
  Ambulance Drivers' Dispute (Essex)
  Average Wage (Scotland)
  Average Wage (Scotland)
  Welders (Bellshill Training Centre)
  Welders (Bellshill Training Centre)
  Training (Lanarkshire)
  Training (Lanarkshire)
  Unemployed Persons (Assessment)
  Unemployed Persons (Assessment)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
ENVIRONMENT
  Bicycles
  Bicycles
  Provisional Driving Licences
  Provisional Driving Licences
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Overspill Estates (Hattersley and Carrbrook)
  Overspill Estates (Hattersley and Carrbrook)
  Motor Vehicles (Tyres)
  Motor Vehicles (Tyres)
  Tipper Lorries
  Tipper Lorries
  Accommodation Expenditure
  Accommodation Expenditure
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Housing Cost Yardsticks
  Housing Cost Yardsticks
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Teachers' Salary Council
  Teachers' Salary Council
  Teachers (Sick Pay)
  Teachers (Sick Pay)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Civil Disturbances House Purchase Scheme
  Civil Disturbances House Purchase Scheme
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATION
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
  Private Property (Powers of Entry)
  Private Property (Powers of Entry)
SCOTLAND
  Hospitals (Supplementary Professions)
  Hospitals (Supplementary Professions)
  Abortions
  Abortions
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ambulance Services
  Ambulance Services
  Battered Children
  Battered Children
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Merchant Navy Welfare Board (Hotels)
  Merchant Navy Welfare Board (Hotels)
  Smoking
  Smoking
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Food Prices (Birmingham)
  Food Prices (Birmingham)
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Cattle Exports
  Cattle Exports
  HS146
  HS146
  Consumer Durables (Sales)
  Consumer Durables (Sales)
  Light Water Reactors
  Light Water Reactors
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Regional Development Grants
  Regional Development Grants
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Investment (EEC Countries)
  Investment (EEC Countries)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Unit Pricing
  Unit Pricing
  Sunderland Shipbuilders
  Sunderland Shipbuilders
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Investments)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Investments)
WALES
  Roads
  Roads
  Rabbit Eradication
  Rabbit Eradication
  Welsh Language Council
  Welsh Language Council

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

INSURANCE OF FOREIGN LORRIES
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard has been in touch with me. Unfortunately he is not well and therefore is unable to be present to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper. He was most anxious that the House should realise that this was not through idleness on his part.

VIETNAM: INTERNATIONAL CONTROL COMMISSION
3.7 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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 their attention has been called to the refusal of the Hungarian and Polish representatives on the International Control Commission in Saigon to accompany the Indonesian members of the Commission and South Vietnamese officers to inspect the damage caused by a Communist rocket attack on the Bien Hao air base on November 6, during the course of which two people including a child were killed, twenty-two people were wounded and five houses destroyed; and whether they will bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary General of the United Nations with a view to the prevention of such dereliction of duty on future occasions.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE): My Lords, the Government
748
of the. Republic of Vietnam informed Her Majesty's Government of the rocket attack on Bien Hao airfield. We greatly deplore all such violations of the Paris Agreement. The Secretary General of the United Nations was present at the International Conference on Vietnam in Paris in March; but the Conference but was unable to agree on any role for the Secretary General in supervising the Agreement.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for her reply, may I say that I am aware that the United Nations were not directly involved in the Paris peace settlement in which we participated. But did not the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, speaking on behalf of the Government on March 6 this year, express the hope that the time might come when the U.N. would be involved? Under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, is not any member of the United Nations entitled, through the Secretary General, to bring before the Security Council any threat to peace, whether or not it is covered by an Agreement like the Paris Agreement? Finally, is there not, according to all the information emanating from North and South Vietnam and Cambodia, the strongest possible evidence of an imminent large-scale Communist attack? Should not we and other peace-loving countries take determined and urgent steps, through the Secretary General, to bring the matter before the Security Council and so forestall it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that my noble friend Lord Lothian did say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we hoped that the United Nations would be involved. We pressed this very hard during the Conference but, as said in my reply, we were unable to achieve agreement beyond the fact that the Secretary General is entitled to receive reports. It is quite true that any member of the Security Council can raise in the Council a question in regard to which he considers would be a threat to the peace; but under the Paris Agreements there are very definite arrangements whereby the International Conference on Vietnam can be reconvened upon a joint request either by the Government of the U.S.A. and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

749
or upon a request by six or more parties. That has so far not taken place.
On the third part of my noble friend's supplementary question, there have recently been signs of an increase in the number of violations of the cease-fire and there are indications of an infiltration of men and supplies into South Vietnam from the North; but we have to take into account that all the parties to the Agreement have repeated in public their intention to carry it out.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, does this actually involve the abandonment of our rights under Chapter 7 of the Charter to bring any matter liable to lead to war to the attention of the Security Council?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, there has not been an abandonment of our rights. The Paris Conference laid down certain definite procedures; and the Conference itself in relation to Vietnam could be reconvened by the United States working together with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. As the United States has not sought to use this procedure, we do not feel that we, who are not directly involved, should take action in the Security Council.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, have the Government any doubts about the absolute impartiality of the Hungarian and Polish representatives on the International Control Commission?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, we feel that the Commission has to a large extent been prevented from carrying out its work, both because of the partisanship of some of its members, and because of the failure of the Communist forces in South Vietnam to co-operate with the Commission.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: BRITISH AND FRENCH AREAS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether agreement has yet been reached with France to delineate French and British licensing areas in the Western Approaches, Celtic Sea and English Channel.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: No, my Lords.
THE EARL or LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that succinct and informative reply. May I ask whether France has adhered to the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, we have always maintained that the 1958 Geneva Convention says clearly that if a boundary cannot be determined by agreement, the boundary is the Median Line.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, following that reply, can my noble friend say whether France, having signed the Convention, or at any rate adhered to it and ratified it, did so with any reservations or has given notice of seeking to revise it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, but we are still trying to reach agreement with the French Government. As my noble friend will understand, the discussions are, of course, confidential.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me where the Celtic Sea is? I have not been able to find it on the map.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, it refers to the Irish Sea and of course the Scottish Seas.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that everyone hopes she will press on with success, no doubt assisted by her own charm and ability?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that encouragement. We shall certainly press on, but it is quite difficult.

NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now confirm the assurance given to Parliament on November 22, 1972 (Hansard, col. 1019), that the resources of the British sector of the North Sea Continental Shelf "are national assets and will be treated as such".
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, following the debate on Lord Balogh's Motion on November 22 I wrote to the noble Lord on December 12 in amplification of what I had said in the debate on this matter. In my letter I said:
"The Government have made it clear that North Sea petroleum is a national asset in the same way as oil and gas and other minerals found on land in the United Kingdom. I can assure you that the petroleum resources of the whole of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf will continue to be treated as national assets in our policy for their exploration and exploitation, and we shall ensure that British interests are taken fully into account as Community energy policy is developed."
This remains the Government's view.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the publication of those words will give great heart to those who have been anxious on this matter? Could my noble friend go a stage further and say whether what he has just said refers also to the British United Kingdom possessions overseas?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I would need notice of that question, but the Geneva Convention has already been referred to, and I would guess that that would apply.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the present position of our being blackmailed by Arab sheikhs over oil, the assets are not Britain's but those of cosmopolitan capitalists? Does he not think that we ought now to nationalise the petroleum area of the North Sea to ensure that it is ours?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is no doubt that the ownership is national. What happens is that a licence to exploit is granted to various licensees.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Conservative Party gave the licences to the outside capitalist organisations and that they ought to have nationalised the area at the time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's view.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, my noble friend says a licence to exploit has been given to various consortia. Since many of these consortia are American-dominated, in cases where the oil does not come ashore from pipelines to the United Kingdom, but may be stored in concrete reservoirs, is it open to those consortia to sell it to anyone or is there some condition written into the original agreement making it essential that the oil should go to Britain?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, as the licences are at present, it is obligatory to bring the oil to Britain.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may return to the broad lines of the original Question, can the Minister inform us whether there is any Community law, directive, regulation or decision which could, now or in the future, be used to limit the power of Her Majesty's Government in this matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not aware of any such law that could in any way affect our regarding these as national assets.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the Minister is not aware of any such law, would he investigate further so that he may be able to give us a firm assurance that there is no such law or other minor decision of the Commission or the Council of Ministers which could be so used?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is very difficult to know what could be so used in different circumstances. I have given the situation as it is at present.
LORD HUGHES: In that case, my Lords, all that we are being told is that at the moment the Government are in a position to regard these as British assets, but they cannot say whether that is going to continue to be the position.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we regard them as British assets and I see no way in which legislation could be passed in the Community, or any agreement reached, without our consent.
LORD HUGHES: That I accept, my Lords. I would ask the Minister to make quite certain that there is in fact no such law at the present time which could be applied against us. Obviously, we could veto future decisions, but what I want to make certain about is that the Minister will assure himself, and then assure us, that there is no such decision at the present time; because many of us are alarmed at the way in which at least some people on the Continent and in the Commission regard this oil as a European asset and not a British asset.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the best thing I can do is to say that I will look further into this point to see whether there is anything in it. All I can say is that no representations have been made to us so far by the E.E.C.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that Britain's ratification of the Convention, I think in 1964, anteceded our accession to the European Community by some nine years, and therefore it take priority in that sense at least?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; that is so.

SELECT COMMITTEES
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 the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe be appointed in the place of the Lord Beswick to the Committee of Selection and the following other Committees of the House: Leave of
754
Absence, House of Lords Offices and Procedure of the House.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Beswick be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a State of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented in the terms set out in the Order Paper. I should like to inform the House that, if noble Lords are agreeable, I propose to move this Motion formally and to make my substantive remarks on the second Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Regulations dated the 13th of November 1973, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of section 2(4) of the said Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may begin by explaining the effect of the Emergency Regulations 1973, which are before your Lordships today, and point out any changes that have been made in them since the previous occasion when a set of regulations of this character were laid and approved by your Lordships.
Noble Lords may like to be reminded that the earlier Regulations were those which came into operation on August 4, 1972 following a strike at the docks. The House debated and approved those regulations on August 9 of last year. I should also like to mention in the course of my speech the measures which my honourable friend the Minister for Industry, has already taken to reduce consumption of electricity and to refer to the relevance of the Emergency Regulations to the general economic situation.
My Lords, it has been the practice of successive Governments—and it has I think been accepted as a wise practice—to make a complete set of Emergency Regulations at the outset. No Government can forecast precisely the course that any emergency is likely to take, and this particular emergency is no exception to that. As always, I can assure your Lordships, as I stated on Tuesday, when I repeated the Home Secretary's Statement, the use made of these powers by the Government will be limited to what the essential public interest requires. To declare a State of Emergency and to take emergency powers are always, and rightly so, treated as grave decisions. The Government accept, and accept with enthusiasm, that it is a proper Parliamentary safeguard for both Houses to have an opportunity to question such actions, and debates of this kind, in your Lordships' House and in the other place, are a necessary restraint on any too ready recourse to powers of this sort.
I turn now to the regulations themselves. Regulations 3 to 5 are concerned with the control of ports. Regulations 6 to 15 are concerned with road transport, and use of road vehicles. It is not expected that immediate use will be made of any of these regulations. Regulations 16 to 20 relate to various public services and public utilities. Regulations 17 and 18, in particular, are concerned with the supply of electricity and gas, respectively. It may be necessary, as on previous occasions, to relieve some electricity boards of their statutory or contractural obligations to supply electricity or to maintain a supply of a certain standard.
I should briefly draw the attention of noble Lords to certain additional powers to give directions, or enable directions to be given, to various river and water
756
authorities, and to sewerage authorities, under Regulations 19 and 20. The 1972 regulations allowed the various water undertakings and water boards and sewerage authorities, acting under any general or special authority granted by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, to disregard certain restrictions imposed with respect to the taking of water or of the discharge of the contents of sewers. The additional powers are designed to facilitate the task of water and sewerage authorities in doing what is necessary or expedient to maintain supplies of water or to secure the most effective draining of the sewers under such direction as the Secretary of State may wish to give.
It is not anticipated that immediate use will have to be made of these new powers, although if we remember the lessons of some earlier emergencies, there is always a possibility that if the electricity supply situation deteriorated drastically, it could interfere with the provision of water supplies and the operation of sewage disposal plants. This addition, and it is the main one, seems to the Government to be only a prudent and useful addition to the existing range of emergency powers.
My Lords, it is under Regulation 21 that my honourable friend has already made orders restricting the consumption of electricity for certain purposes in connection with space heating and display and advertising lighting. There is an additional power included under Regulation 21 which enables the Secretary of State to regulate or prohibit by order the supply or abstraction and consumption of water, in terms similar to the existing powers relating to fuel, refinery products, electricity and gas. Again it is not anticipated that early use would need to be made of the power to regulate the supply or consumption of water.
Regulation No. 22 is in the same form as in the last set of regulations, and enables directions to be given in respect of solid or liquid fuel and refinery products. This regulation could be used if necessary to control oil deliveries by requiring suppliers of oil in this country to deliver only a stated percentage of what would otherwise have gone out and, at the same time, to meet, in full, the needs of certain essential users. But these regulations have a limited life (limited to

757
30 days, unless Parliament decides to extend them) and range and the Government will not hesitate to ask Parliament for additional powers in relation to oil allocation if it proves necessary to do so in the light of the recent war in the Middle East.
The remaining Regulations, 23 to 25, on consumption and supply generally are not ones that the Government envisage that it will be necessary to make use of in the immediate future. Regulations 26 to 29 are concerned with the regulation of various transport services, and here again it is not anticipated that immediate use will be made of them.
The remaining Regulations, 30 to 40, are in the standard form, but perhaps I should draw the attention of noble Lords to a proviso in Regulation 38. Paragraph 1 of this Regulation states that no person shall be guilty of an offence against the Emergency Regulation (and that includes breaches of orders made under the Regulations) by reason of his taking part in, or peacefully persuading others to take part in, a strike. I mention this merely to make clear that these regulations are in no way directed against the lawful activities of trade unions. Their sole purpose now, as on previous occasions, is to grant the Government the necessary powers to safeguard the essentials of life.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that these paragraphs are in standard form. I particularly have in mind No. 33, the question of trespassing within the vicinity of certain premises. Can he tell me whether this has been so on all previous occasions?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords subject to correction, I believe that is so. I asked the same question, because I wanted to draw to the attention of your Lordships any significant change in the Regulations that we are considering to-day as compared with the Regulations which on two occasions were considered and approved last year. If there is any change on that or on any other matter my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who will be replying for the Government, will have an opportunity to notify your Lordships.
Governments are often accused of acting too slowly. I notice that in February of last year, when an Emergency
758
was proclaimed in connection with another dispute in the coalfields, my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, said in a similar debate, from this same Despatch Box:
"The second main criticism levelled in this context on the Government is that we moved too slowly in asking Parliament for these crucial Emergency Powers."—[OFFICIAL , REPORT, 15/2/72: col. 22.]
That was last year, my Lords. This time some doubts have been expressed —they were expressed in this House on Tuesday last, and were expressed also in another place—as to whether the Government had acted too quickly. We believe that it is circumspect and wise, at a time when there is a triple threat to energy supplies and when winter is beginning to set in, to ask Parliament to agree that these powers should be given to the Government for a period of 30 days.
My Lords, let me review (and I shall do so briefly) some of the events which have occurred in the last few weeks, or, in the words of the 1920 Act, "are about to occur". First, as regards coal, a responsible official of the National Union of Mineworkers has stated quite clearly—and the National Coal Board have confirmed this—that the effect of the ban on overtime would be to lead very quickly to a drastic fall in coal production. The Home Secretary was asked in another place last Tuesday whether a ban on overtime had previously been a ground for declaring a State of Emergency. So far as we can ascertain, this is the first occasion when that has been so. But, equally, it is the first time that a ban on overtime is said by both sides of the industry to have such a marked impact in the near future in cutting back production greatly in excess of the reduction in the number of hours worked. I can tell your Lordships that since the ban on overtime took effect in the coalfields there has been a reduction in output which is estimated to be of the order of 20 per cent.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Is it not rather peculiar that we had a ban on overtime before the last miners' strike and there was no call for an Emergency? Why is there a change of policy on this occasion?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think I have answered that in what I have

759
just said: that we believe, as do the National Coal Board, that this ban on overtime will lead to a reduction in the amount of coal available at a particularly crucial time, when oil supplies from the Middle East are also in question. I have also given your Lordships the figure, which is a new figure to-day—and I would ask your Lordships to give due weight to it—that the National Coal Board and the Department of Trade and Industry have estimated that in the last three days output has been reduced by something of the order of 20 per cent. I do not want this afternoon to go into all the complexities of this particular dispute between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board—I do not think it is the right occasion to do that—but I think it would be helpful to have some details in order to see this issue in a rather wider perspective. The National Coal Board's offer within the Price and Pay Code for Stage 3 would give the miners an increase on average of nearly 13 per cent. on the wage bill. This follows nearly 8 per cent., arising from a settlement in April, 1972, after the strike that took place in January and February of that year. The present offer would cost the industry £44 million. The offer is one of the best ever made in the history of the coal industry. Nevertheless, it has not been accepted, and the miners have persisted with a claim which the National Coal Board have estimated would cost approximately 30 per cent. of the wage bill to implement in full.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord again, this 13 per cent. has been bandied about. The 13 per cent. for workers working unsocial hours applies only to 10 per cent. of the men in the industry. Why say it is 13 per cent. over the whole industry when it affects only 10 per cent.?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these figures can be argued in many different ways—and I do not want to get into an argument over figures. But let me make it quite clear to the noble Lord that the negotiators of the National Coal Board can make what adjustments they wish between different groups of workers. It was open to them to do this in the course of the negotiations in which they have been engaged, provided that the overall
760
amount is within the limits set by Stage 3 of the Price and Pay Code. It will therefore be seen, as I have already explained, that the miners will do better than average under Stage 3–because the average, as your Lordships will know, is 7 per cent., with a 1 per cent. flexibility margin, and a number of other special provisions—and thus they have more to gain than to lose from the pay policy. Their relative improvement would not be maintained in a free-for-all. So it can be said, I think with considerable force, that the miners themselves have a vested interest in seeing that the Stage 3 policy sticks.
My Lords, so far as the electricity generating industry is concerned, some members of the public have already suffered from termination of supply. This has not yet taken the form of organised rota cuts which the electricity boards have been able to operate in previous emergencies, but there have been black-outs without warning and uncertainty as to when it will be possible for supplies to be resumed. In these circumstances, it is not always feasible to guarantee supplies to priority consumers, and to maintain supplies to hospital operating theatres, to those on kidney machines, and others who have a great need for a maintained and constant supply of electricity. But, meanwhile, the talks continue with the power engineers, and it is the desire of the Government to reach a settlement in this particular issue, within the limits of its counter-inflation policy, as it is the desire of the National Coal Board to reach a settlement with the National Union of Mineworkers.
My Lords, so far I have confined my remarks to the content of the Emergency Regulations which are before your Lordships to-day and to the events which led up to the proclamation on Tuesday. But I think your Lordships would expect me, before ending, to refer to the balance of payments situation and the monetary measures which were announced also on Tuesday by the Bank of England. The October trade figures showed a deficit on current account of £298 million, and while there were some identifiable special factors—such as an interruption in the re-export of precious stones because of the Middle East war, increased fuel imports, a rise in the number of ships built in foreign yards on United Kingdom order and delivered abroad, and

761
some problems about recording imports at London Airport—there is no disguising that these figures were most disappointing and would be regarded as such not only in this country, but overseas as well. Consequently, the Bank of England, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised its minimum lending rate from 11¼ per cent. to 13 per cent., and at the same time made a further call on the banks for special deposits from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. of their eligible liabilities.
This action has held sterling steady in the exchange markets at a very difficult time and, of course, is quite distinct from the Emergency Regulations that we are debating to-day. Yet in a wider sense there is a connection: what our nation is engaged upon is a determined effort— perhaps the most determined in the post-war era—to achieve and adhere to (and I emphasise the second of those words) a policy which combines economic growth with a reduction in the rate of inflation. This policy is assailed at many points: by the explosion in world commodity prices; by the comparative value of the pound and other world currencies; by the war in the Middle East; and by wage demands which exceed by a very substantial margin our real economic growth.
Of course, the miners can argue that they are a special case. They did so only last year, when in February a similar State of Emergency to that which we are discussing to-day was brought about by another dispute in the coal industry. I recognise that miners who work underground have a hard life and do work which many of us would be reluctant to undertake, even if we had the skill and strength to do so. But, my Lords, we are in Parliament. We have a duty to see the whole picture. It is not necessary to dismiss the feelings of men like miners, who work long hours in difficult conditions, in order to come to a judgment of the needs of society at large. I believe that an overwhelming majority, if not all, of us in this House accept the need for a prices and incomes policy. The aims of the policy have indeed been agreed between the Government and the main interests in the economy. There are, of course, differences as to the implementation of those aims, but as the standstill of Phase 1 has
762
given way to the gradual easing of Stages 2 and 3 we all know that it is simply not possible to abandon all limits altogether. To do so in response to the demands—legitimate and just as they may appear to those making them—of special interests would be to negate the effectiveness of the policy upon which so much depends.
We are really talking to-day, as we have been for some months when discussing the economy, whether we realise it or not, of the future of our country and of what sort of place Britain is to be. I would be the last to argue that human happiness and achievement can he measured solely in economic terms. But I am utterly convinced that unless we face up to the consequences of what a policy for expansion entails we shall fail in our responsibilities. We therefore must see these Regulations in the context of the wider considerations that apply, and that is why I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to approve these Regulations to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Regulations dated the 13th of November 1973, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.—(Lord Windlesham.)
3.44 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it is my duty, first of all, to thank the Leader of the House for his introduction of these Regulations and for telling us of the actions which the Government have taken up to now. Let me say at the outset that I am not going to discuss the actual dispute as between the miners and the Coal Board. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that he was not going to do so, and then set about doing precisely that. When I say I am not going to do it, I am not going to do it; because I do not believe that at this stage it is wise for us in Parliament to go into what is clearly a dispute between the men and the management. Nor is it my intention to discuss the actual Regulations that we shall shortly be passing. They appear to me to follow the well-established precedents for Regulations of this sort, with some slight additions and with a completely new paragraph under the heading "Consumption and Supply of Medicines".

763
To these Regulations, and to the additions, we have no objections as such; but what I think the House will want to discuss are the reasons for their introduction; that is to say, both the reasons given to Parliament by the Government and the reasons that many of us suspect lie behind the move which caused the proclamation of an emergency on Tuesday last. In the past, the use of emergency powers has been a very rare event in the life of our country. Such powers were used once only during the five years of the life of the Labour Government, and that was on the occasion of the seamen's strike in 1966. Since this Government came to power, in three and a half years they have come to Parliament five times to ask for emergency powers: twice in 1970, twice in 1972 and once in 1973, up to now. In 1970 it was because of a dock strike and a power workers' work-to-rule. In 1972 there was a miners' strike and then another dock strike. Now a ban on overtime by the miners and certain electricity workers is given as the reason for a proclamation of a State of Emergency. One wonders if, at the present stage of the action by those workers, the overtime bans are really the cause of the State of Emergency that has been declared, or whether we have not to look a little further and probe a little deeper to find the real cause of the Government's precipitate action. I very much think, and assert, that it is a precipitate action. I say that because it is surely the case that the actions of neither the miners nor the electricity workers have begun seriously to affect the life of the nation, and certainly not to such an extent as would justify the declarataion of a State of Emergency.
The powers granted by Parliament to Governments under the Emergency Regulations procedure are of a very drastic nature and ought not to be invoked except in the direst emergency and as a last resort. In this case the Government seem to be seeking emergency powers as a first, and not a last, resort. They seem to be doing it without any attempt to settle the industrial disputes or to set up some form of inquiry with that end in view, namely, the settling of the disputes themselves. "Let us fight it out", seems to be the Government's stand at this
764
time: and with the economy in its present state and the winter upon us, one is bound to ask whether this is the right moment for a showdown between the Government and the industrial workers of this country.
What I suspect led up to the decision to ask for the proclamation of a State of Emergency was a Cabinet meeting faced with a catastrophic set of trade figures such as have not been faced by any Government before in the long history of this country. The shock of those disastrous trade figures, coming on top of the worrying situation with regard to oil supplies necessitating (as it probably will) the rationing of petrol and oil, caused the Government and the Minister to think: "We can surely lessen the impact of all this on the minds of the public by drawing attention to the possible result of pending industrial action and away from our failures to manage the economy successfully." It was a belligerent defensive action and, I am bound to say, well designed to hide to some extent the drastic squeeze on bank lending under which the Bank of England has created another disgraceful record figure of 13 per cent. minimum lending rate and the calling in from the banks of special deposits of the order of £600 million, to say nothing of the threat of increased taxation and further draconic measures that were promised.
I make no bones about my belief that in any country it is the job of the Government to govern, but we can have little confidence in a Government's ability to govern if it runs the country into the declaration of a State of Emergency five times in a little over three and a half years, or if it permits the economy to over-stretch itself to such a disastrous degree as to see our trade figures the worst in our history. Although blaming the Government for much that has led up to the situation, I am bound to add that a democracy such as ours demands the acceptance of large measures of self-discipline. "I'm alright, Jack, and damn the rest!" is not good enough, whether it be exercised by those whose greed and lack of self discipline at one level caused the Prime Minister to condemn the "unacceptable face of capitalism" or at another level for workers' organisations to press claims which could be met only by distorting the wage differentials to

765
such an extent as to cause massive counter-claims to be pursued which serve only to give a further twist to the inflationary spiral.
Perhaps, as an old man, but not, I hope, a soured one, I may be permitted a general comment. I see around me too many signs that make me think of the phrase "Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad." I see a Government urging the economy to "Go-go-go!" to the point of a disastrously overstretched and over-heated state and printing money at an ever accelerating pace. I see the powerful trade unions, led from behind, demanding more and more regardless of the effects on others. If we do not pull ourselves together and face up to the realities of life, irretrievable disaster will inevitably follow.
My Lords, I end by urging the Government to try to get their industrial relations policy on a better footing, and the trade unions to accept their responsibilities, not only to their members but also to the community as a whole. Those are the responsibilities their accession of vast power demands, and great power has now fallen to the trade unions as a result of what has happened since the end of the war in 1945. I am not too sure that the trade union movement, of which I hope I was a useful part, has really faced up yet to these great responsibilities.
3.54 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches were very puzzled at the decision of the Government to introduce emergency powers, and puzzled also as to what our reaction should be to this proposal. Let me say first and foremost that we should have been extremely critical as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, if the economy had moved into such a state that emergency powers were needed, drastic action was needed, and the Government had failed to take action in time. I agree we would have been the first to criticise them on a policy of "Too little and too late." At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, all Parliamentarians and all Oppositions in a democracy must be deeply alarmed and deeply anxious when emergency powers are introduced. The burden of proof has to be on the Government to show that such measures, and only such measures, are appropriate
766
for dealing with the situation in which we find ourselves. We know that the Government really believe this, too—that you cannot have a democracy, or parliamentary government, if too often and too easily when difficult situations arise the Government resort to the use of emergency powers. And so far it is difficult to understand that this action really was called for at the present time, or is indeed appropriate to the particular situation in which we find ourselves.
Having said that, I do not go along with the view which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the decision was taken in order to direct attention, direct responsibility and to criticise the action of the miners and the electricians. I cannot think that the Government believe that this would have been an acceptable policy to adopt, or that they would have gained any kudos or support from the electorate as a whole if that had been their reason for doing it. This is a further reason for our puzzlement. It is difficult to see how there are considerable gains to be got out of the action which the Government are taking. In any case, as the noble Lord has told us, these powers last for only 30 days, and the problems will be there at the end of 30 days.
If we look at the real causes that lie behind the problems and the situation in which we find ourselves, to what extent will it have helped to have had emergency powers once again, with the anxiety, the suspicion and the bitterness that the use of such powers is bound to cause?—for we still have the problems upon us. Are the problems of such an order and of such a kind that the use of emergency powers is really what is needed to deal with them? As the noble Lord told us, there are three difficult areas at the present time; there are the trade figures, there is the problem of oil and there are industrial disputes and the impact of industrial disputes on the all-pervasive and over-ridingly important problem of inflation. We are groping in the dark at the moment both as to the real situation in the economy and as to the real reasons for the Government's action.
May I be daring and disagree with the previous speaker, and suggest that I doubt whether the overall trade position is really as bad as those October figures

767
suggest? We have been told again and again that one month's trade figures are not to be taken too seriously. We knew that preceeding the October figures the trend on the whole was somewhat better. We know that the CBI is reasonably optimistic. We know that the exchange rates have held up remarkably well in the present crisis. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said that this is due to the fact that the bank rate went up to 13 per cent., and it may be that as a result of this it steadied the pound on the world exchanges. But I cannot believe that if the real underlying trade position was as serious as has been suggested the mere movement to 13 per cent., which could have been regarded as a panic and desperate measure, would have been enough to stabilise world exchange rates to the extent that in fact has taken place. So, sticking my neck out, I agree, and taking considerable risks in saying so, that it is very difficult to believe that our trade position is really as bad as has been suggested, and as that particular set of figures leads us to believe, and therefore as to whether real emergency measures are needed under this particular head. May I also make the point that although 13 per cent. sounds an alarmingly high figure, because of this evil and all-pervasive inflation it is really not all that high? After all, if money is losing value at about 10 per cent. per year, 13 per cent. is only 5 per cent. borrowing rate. That is not normally what one regards as a very pleasant figure though I do not regard it as either a very alarming or startling bank rate. Nor do I regard the present trade figures which we have been given as an indication of a very serious trading situation having regard to all the other indicators.
Secondly, the oil situation. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had given us more detail about what the oil situation really is. It seems to me that this is the joker in the pack; this is the really alarming situation over which we have all too little, if any, control and which could indeed render the total economic situation very much more serious that it otherwise would be. May we ask that in the winding-up we be told more about the position in regard to oil? Because whereas many people are doubtful and anxious about the use of emer
768
gency powers, I am certain that if we knew the real facts about oil—as I said only last week—the country would respond to the need for drastic economies and drastic action in that particular to meet a specific danger with a specific draconic cure. This is something that we can all take; what we cannot take is a draconic measure for a set of circumstances which do not in themselves seem to measure up to the situation. If we have to have oil rationing, let us have it; and if it is put across properly and the reasons behind it explained—and I think the public are half way towards expecting it—then indeed we would take it. But we do not need Emergency Regulations in order to introduce oil rationing. I do not see the connection between the disease and the cure.
As to the industrial relations situation and the effect on inflation, of course this is what lies behind so much of our economic problems. We have said again and again that inflation is not solely due to excessive wage payments—we all know that by now. We equally know that excessive wage payments do make a substantial contribution. What is more important, we from these Benches have been saying for a long time that we support a statutory prices and incomes policy, properly and fairly enforced, with proper safeguards, and we cannot see with equanimity a breach in what is the Government's policy. We are debating the counter-inflation measures next Tuesday. I regretfully have the gravest doubts as to whether Phase 3 as it stands is going to work—but we shall be debating that next week. If Phase 3 does not work, it is my view that we are going to need something more, and not less, serious than is entailed in Phase 3. I believe that Phase 3 has so many loopholes that in fact it will be an encouragement to inflation rather than a cure for it. But let us leave that to the debate next week.
I cannot see that emergency powers are really required for dealing with the liability if not the necessity that Phase 3 is going to be breached. Some other action is required, but not emergency powers. So once again, while accepting that there is real danger there I find it difficult to understand that emergency powers are needed. May I say, having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I was appreciative

769
and welcomed the courage in the criticism which he made of the failure of the trade union movement to match its great powers to-day with a comparable degree of responsibility. It seems to me the greatest pity that the Labour Party has not been able to say that more loudly and more clearly in the past, to say, for example, as the Labour Party has not said, that there must be an incomes policy as well as a prices policy. What sort of a counter-inflation policy is it to advocate —as the Labour Party, in another place at any rate, has repeatedly advocated—a prices policy and no incomes policy? We from these Benches insist that there must be a real incomes policy.
My Lords, I hope I have made clear the attitude that we from these Benches take. We accept that there is a serious situation; we do not see the relevance of emergency powers to this situation. We are not immediately going to oppose them, but we would ask for a more detailed explanation about the relevance of emergency powers to oil, and what the oil situation really is, because this seems to be more at the heart of the matter than does the industrial relations situation, serious though that is. We say that we would accept oil rationing if this were needed, but let us be told the true facts about oil and not have the situation marked by the general application of emergency powers which seem to have little direct bearing in detail on the problems we face.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Government are certainly willing to give whatever information they can about the oil situation to the House, but will the noble Baroness accept that she is seeking certainty in what is a very uncertain situation?
4.7 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I think that both speeches indicate the tone and mood of the House while we are confronted with these Emergency Regulations and I cannot for the life of me see any reason for that action. I remember particularly the Emergency Powers Act 1964 and, in case noble Lords have forgotten, I would remind them that in Section 2 of that Act, under the Defence Regulations of 1939 (I am paraphrasing and cutting out the legal semantics), the use
770
of any members of the Armed Forces for any work of national importance shall become permanent—in other words, at any time. With the due presentation to Parliament Forces could have been used in an emergency. Instead of that we get a massive statutory instrument, No. 1881, with 40 to 41 provisions all about using old cars that are almost derelict for driving because the country is going on the rocks, control of port traffic, gas supplies, right down to the power of arrest without warrant, penalties and places of trial and supplementary regulations that in my estimation are unnecessary in this crisis.
The United Nations Energy Consumption Report which is just out (sales No. E.73.XVII.2) contains full information on the production of gas, solid fuel, oil, nuclear and thermal types of production of energy in the world, and the strange thing is that there has been a record world production of energy, a record world production of gasolene and a record world production of natural gas. At present, 50 countries in the world are producing natural gas, and in the past decade the percentage increase has been greater than ever before in history. Since the world export of natural gas has grown, from 1961 to 71, at the exceptional rate of 25 per cent. this highest rate has been due often to importing this gas in liquid form. In other words, just at the moment when we are playing a threnody of despair about the world energy sources the United Nations tells the world that there is more energy than before.
Nevertheless, despite that fact (and any noble Lord can check this) I am prepared to grant that at this moment this little country is confronted with critical questions. I want to endorse the constructive speech of my right honourable friend speaking from the Front Bench when he asked a pregnant question. Why is it—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would be a help if noble Lords opposite would refer to Peers as "noble Lords" and not as "right honourable friends". It is the second time it has been done.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I did that once, did I? If that is the only thing that upsets the noble

771
Lord in life, I am delighted. I will try to be courteous and remember that, and I apologise to the House if that upsets anybody.
I repeat to noble Lords that it is the fifth time that this has happened in three years, and no other Government have had this problem. Why is this? I must endorse the interspersion of my right honourable friend—my noble friend—Lord Blyton when he speaks about the issue of the miners' wages. Only 14,000 out of a quarter of a million are going to get that £9. And if anybody knows anything about cutting coal he will know that they are well entitled to that £9 extra. Some of the rest are down to £3·5. I will not go into the analysis, but it is the usual and characteristic mathematical jugglery of dealing with averages. There was a fascinating letter in The Times the day before yesterday on the injudicious use of statistics in giving average wages. The fact is that if you take an average wage you find that over half the people involved do not receive it. This is due to what we call "skew" in statistics; and it can be due also to not comparing like with like. The sooner we get rid of using these averages to back up economic arguments, the nearer we shall be to reality.
I am reminded in this laissez-passer, laissez-faire system of society in which we are now living of the days of the "Robert E. Lee" running up the Mississippi. The Prime Minister seems to be like Steamboat Bill, running the ship of State up the Mississippi for a gamblers' race; he has used up all the energy and all the coal and is now burning the furniture and frightening the crew to death because the pressure of the steam in the boilers is on the point of explosion. This is exactly the kind of uncontrolled policy that this laissez-passer, laissez-faire policy has landed us in in the past three years of Conservative Government. When Wellington was made Prime Minister (I got this the other morning out of that delightful book by Elizabeth Longford on Wellington, at page 147) the King said this to him, rather lugubriously. "Arthur", said the King, sitting up in bed with a turban night-cap, "my Cabinet is defunct." And if ever a Cabinet was defunct, it is this one. Have we ever heard a more comic
772
and foolish explanation in the two explanatory speeches by Mr. Walker in trying to explain to the people of Britain why there is a great deficit of £298 million? He explains it by talking about buying a few ships and juggling with diamonds. This of course is absolutely absurd, when one is talking in terms of deficits of this size. The Government's panic crisis measures coincided really and truly with a deficit which, when a next Labour Government come in, will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,000 million.
In the City yesterday, we are told, Mr. Anthony Barber's name was mentioned in far more scathing and bitter terms than those in which any Labour Chancellor's name was ever uttered before. The absurdity, therefore, of trying to blame just the trade union movement for problems that are world-wide should now be obvious. This folly, in my estimation, is gliding into sin. This is the kind of idiocy in high places that leads to the cold indifference of the people in relation to politicians. The people find themselves powerless and they say, "For God's sake! give us the truth." It is the truth the nation needs. We do not want a Watergate situation in this country. No Government need be ashamed of the truth, because the hard fact of life to-day, with the rapidity of modern transport, is that the interdependence of world commercial, economic, social and financial exchanges makes it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for any one Government of any political colour to have complete control over their destiny. But this Government are not even standing up to their competitiors abroad. Nevertheless, this is no reason for abandoning the reins of control and depending still on laissez-faire.
Let us take two examples, before I sit down. William Davis, in the Guardian, of Saturday, November 10, spoke about the "floating pound" which was a euphemism for devaluation. Whatever one may think of the right honourable Harold Wilson, had we in the period of the Labour Government descended towards euphemisms about the floating pound, we should have been told straightforwardly, "This is nothing more than common or garden devaluation." This euphemism saved the Prime Minister from crisis headlines. It would not have saved a Labour

773
Government. The way we have been borrowing in the Eurodollar market is completely irresponsible. The Eurodollar is, as somebody said, a green pig not fed but backed by faith. And there are billions of them floating around Europe with nothing behind them. They are worse than any fiduciary issue in history. Special Drawing Rights were built on them. But the dollar which we have been borrowing in private and in public industries is dangerous. The nationalised industries and British local authorities have been borrowing in tile Eurodollar market—the Electricity Council, the Post Office, the Gas Corporation; and they have borrowed vast sums, all helping to pile up the feeling of insecurity and lack of faith.
Up to last year, we have borrowed in the Eurodollar market some 3,000 million dollars. I should like if possible to have an answer to-day to the question: how much have we borrowed in the Eurodollar market, and why was this done? I know what it did. It was a wonderful trick. For the period of borrowing it boosted our foreign currency reserves and the Government could give out figures based on a fiction. It propped up sterling. But in sterling we have another massive possibility of blackmail—quite as powerful as oil. If there is lack of faith in this country, the withdrawal of sterling balances because of this precipitate action of creating a crisis feeling by declaring emergency powers could well intensify the crisis and lead to bitter scenes in Britain itself.
This should be a warning to my own Party. We have to get down to the brass tacks of the failures of industrialism. Growth is dangerous, and uncontrolled growth is deadly and cancerous. The fact is that perpetual growth is such a strain on the world's essential raw materials—energy, power; esoteric raw materials, copper, zinc, titanium. As standards of life go up in this world of ours, so the demand on these scarce raw materials and manpower increases. We must note that, despite the miracles of modern technology, there are areas of essential service and production where only men and women with brain and muscle power can do the work. For example, who can take the place of a hospital nurse? Who can take the place of a miner cutting coal, or the postman delivering letters?—and we are 9,500 postmen short.
774
These are the problems, and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger added an apt phrase: when we are told that we are short of Tube drivers, we are short of miners, we are short of postmen, we are short of people on engines, and indeed we are short of manpower everywhere, she asked a beautiful question, "Where have all the flowers gone?" I can answer that question: they have gone into the "lump". They have gone into the lump system of production. Even in the mining industry now, if I am a contractor cutting coal I can go round the village and get 10 or 15 men and say, "Boys, come in with me and I will give you a wage rate according to my contract that is better than theirs". Noble Lords in this House know that in hospitals the supply of nurses is just kept going by means of the contract system of hiring nurses out at rates of pay higher than that of the S.R.N.s and others who have worked and been loyal to the hospitals. This is causing distress, and all these things should be cleaned up in our system.
It is time that the nation got rid of its avariciousness and we sought to put our own house in order, instead of rushing into the Common Market as quickly as we did and bringing out crisis measures like this Regulation, when really more discussions with the C.B.I., with the miners, with the electricity workers and others by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister would, I am sure, have led to a constructive approach by the trade union movement. For all our criticisms of the men and women of the British trade union movement, for my part they are the most common-sense trade union workers in the world.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, for a long time I have thought that some of the things which I am going to say to-day should be said clearly, unequivocally and in your Lordships' House. I do so, however, with some hesitation and trepidation, not really on my own account but because it is taking a good deal on oneself as being one far less experienced in the matters on which I speak than most Members of this House. Secondly, I am concerned that what I say may have a useful effect, and it is at least possible that the reverse

775
might be the case. I have yet to find a moment which is suitable for saying the sort of thing that I propose to say to-day.
First, my Lords, few thinking, unbiased people could, in my opinion, doubt the gravity of the present and long-term future of this country, and I would emphasise the future more than the present. It appals me that in another place the Order should have been taken as an opportunity for playing Party politics on a level which I can only say was undignified. I should like to call it something quite else, but I think that is sufficient. Is it any wonder that the name of Parliament is tarnished in the thoughts of the people of this country? Perhaps this is just an expression of the general tendency to-day to have no common purpose and to be unwilling to make any sacrifices for the good of the nation as a whole.
Secondly, although I am no economist I believe we must accept that at present our output per man (in other words, productivity) is very poor in comparison with that of most E.E.C. countries. I conclude that our economic difficulties and failure to balance more than one of the economic variables at a time—for example, balance of payments, growth and our own Budget—are simply indications of this unpleasant fact. We are simply over-spending, and if we go on in this way our standard of living must inevitably fall. It is long past the time when both Parties should tell the nation some unpleasant facts about our ability to afford many of the social improvements and increases in wages which we should all like to see.
Another hard fact which the T.U.C. seems unable to grasp, or at any rate admit, is that wage increases for one sector can be obtained only at the expense of another, and those with the weakest bargaining power lose out. Let us make no mistake: if we add inflation and the increase in productivity over the years to wages, real wages have risen little more than they would taking these two factors into account, in spite of all the unions' efforts. This, if we come to think of it, is a fairly obvious truism, because there is only so much national cake to share out. The tragedy is that everyone,
776
including the workers, have less than they otherwise would because the amount of the cake has been diminished by unnecessary industrial action.
The prevention of excessive profits and large personal wealth might be good from a psychological point of view—and personally I think something should be done on these lines—but if such wealth were redistributed the effect would be small. Those who hold that view seem to be obsessed with high fixed incomes, which are utterly irrelevant from any practical point of view. The Labour Government did nothing effective to reduce the fortunes being made by entrepreneurs and there are relatively as many rich people as there ever were. The money has simply changed hands. The fixed income man, even at £30,000 a year, is not, after tax, in this league.
Thirdly, I am afraid I must speak of the unions. I suspect that those who did so much to form them into viable entities, if they are really honest, are also worried by the adult behaviour of the promising children they so carefully nurtured, with such success. Where is the leadership and the common sense to-day which they gave in so great a measure in the past? Unions to-day frequently lead from the rear and do nothing to restrain the trouble-makers, Communists and fellow travellers who are concerned only in wrecking our present society. I hope no noble Lords will make a mistake about that point. There are those whose only object is to wreck this society because they believe that it cannot be changed and they want to start again. If you ask them what they propose to do about it when they have wrecked society, they usually say. "That is a non-question". If you push them further they say, "It will take a considerable time to wreck society completely, and by that time no doubt we shall have found the answer as to where we want to go".
Part of the reason is, of course, that the unions have allowed just these people to obtain power within their structure. Unions are not democratic in any sensible meaning of that word. I was going to say that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, would deal with this matter, but I gather that he has decided not to speak. However, I am afraid I propose to do so, briefly.

777
Mr. Bert Ramelson was reported to have said on I.T.V. on November 13–and he is the industrial organiser of the Communist Party—that politically-conscious Communists are now playing a dominant part in shaping the policies of the Labour Party. He said that the liaison committee of the T.U.C. now had a Communist chairman and secretary and was responsible for promoting the present wave of one-day strikes and for increasing violence by pickets. He pointed out that we had lost 24 million working days through strikes in 1972, compared with fewer than 2 million in 1963. The degree of infiltration in the trade unions was also revealed by trade union officials. The Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers have 40 card-carrying Commuists and 40 more automatic supporters among its 175 full-time officials. The Transport and General Workers Union had 12 to 15 Communists among its 36 Executive members. Let us hear no more of the stale joke of "Reds under the bed."
My Lords, I am not a "union-basher", and for a long time I have avoided talking about them. Nevertheless, I feel impelled to say that unless they can change, put their house in order and move into the 20th century, the outlook is bleak for everyone. They are a necessary part of our present society, and it is a tragedy if they cannot play a responsible part. This has been said rather less crudely, or hinted at, by a few of the noble Lords who have spoken earlier. In any case, for the future of real democracy, I deplore the hold they have over the Labour Party in government. This, in my view, is an order of magnitude—and if anyone does not know what that is, it is ten times —worse than the influence which big business has on the Conservative side. If we overcome this Emergency, and if we are not to have the future which Lord Rothschild mentioned, I appeal to all men of good sense, irrespective of Party, to put their shoulders to the national wheel.
My Lords, I mention the miners' dispute only briefly, but if it comes to the crunch (and I hope to goodness it will not, as I am sure most do) it is surely not too much to expect that a National Government should be formed. Let us state it quite unequivocally: if the dispute goes to the limit, then this country
778
at that stage is virtually ungovernable and in a state of anarchy. In these circumstances, and to some exent even now under Phase 3, the rights and wrongs of the case are not really relevant in the national interest. It certainly is not the case that the miners are as desperately poor as we find some other people still are in the country. I should like to leave that thought with noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Benches, because I am sure they are also men of good sense. Of course I sit on the Cross-Benches, so I do not normally differentiate, but I believe that unless we take the future seriously, unless we are prepared to move together more than we have in the past, and to eschew political causes in many of the more important issues, I, for one, have no great faith in the future of this nation.
4.35 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, it is not my intention to deal with some of the very provocative statements made by the noble Viscount who has just preceded me. I imagine my noble friend Lord Shinwell may be speaking a little later on, but I was very intrigued indeed with the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth to "Reds under the bed". This is the old bogey that he and people like him have been trotting out to the trade union movement down through the ages and in all possible conditions, in order to denigrate those responsible trade union leaders to whom this nation owes a real debt of gratitude for the way they have been able to harness organised labour, and under whom organised labour has played its part in building up the character of this nation.
My Lords, very sweeping powers have been asked for in these Regulations. The very sweeping nature of them indicates the serious position that this nation is facing. Therefore, the question must be one of analysing the real position. Is it because the miners, some 15,000 of them, are pressing for £9 a week increase? Is it because a few electrical power engineers have said that they agreed with their employers 18 months ago on a certain improvement in their conditions and, because of procrastination and delay, they are suggesting taking this step? Is this the real cause of these Emergency Regulations? Of course the answer is

779
"No". Those matters are just a smokescreen, so that ultimately, if the crisis develops, as is a possibility, the Government can say, "Who shall rule, the trade unions or the Government? Whore is the real trouble?"
Let us look at the situation as it is now being revealed almost hourly by the news that is corning in, with our disturbing adverse balance of trade, a £298 million deficit last month and an accumulation of previous months of deficit balances. One should bear in mind that when this Government took office in June, 1970, we had a favourable balance of trade. The Labour Government inherited a deficit balance of trade when it took office and had to get over the difficulties left by the previous Tory Government. By the time that Labour Government left office there was a favourable balance of trade. To-day, after three years of Tory government, we find we are deeper in the red than ever before—last month alone the deficit was nearly £300 million. This is the really serious situation that is developing.
We also find that in our trade relations with the rest of the world this Government are insisting that they know best. They have been riding roughshod over men and women engaged in industry, both employers and employees, and by the institution of certain measures they have so poisoned the atmosphere that the difficulty is not so much the dispute between both sides of industry, but that both sides of industry are greatly annoyed because the men who sit in the ivory towers of Whitehall think they know best. So we develop this recurring crisis.
A few moments ago one noble Lord referred to lost days of employment last year——23,900,000 days of lost work consequent upon industrial disputes. This under a Government which had passed measures such as the Industrial Relations Act, which are supposed to be in office to establish good will in industry. Compare that figure of 23,900,000 with an average figure for lost days previously in industry, of about 2 million per year. These are the root causes of the trouble with which we are faced to-day.
Then we have a further situation that is developing. In this Middle East dispute the Government have tried, as it were, to sit on the fence; in effect they
780
have become "men of Munich" by the appeasement of the Arabs over the oil. Ultimately we are going to receive the worst of both worlds; oil will be rationed to us and the price is bound to increase; at the same time the Israelis have lost all moral faith in us because we refused to honour our obligations to them under certain trade relations. Here is the real nub of the trouble, and here is the difficulty with which the Government are faced. The noble Viscount who preceded me suggested that this situation was far too serious and that we should rally round the Government in an attempt to get us out of these difficulties. The difficulties must be overcome, but on the other hand how can they be overcome when the situation continues in the way that has brought the crisis about? There has to be a clear-out process first.
Some of my noble friends are rather sceptical about the trade unions. I should like to draw their attention to what has been given as the excuse for these emergency powers; that is, the difficulty with the miners. The noble Lord who preceded me referred to the undemocratic position of our trade unions. What could be more democratic than what has taken place over the dispute in the mines? First, the matter was duly considered by branches, who put motions up to their national executive. Their national executive rightly considered these, and eventually called a special annual general meeting of their organisation to discuss the overtime ban that was then being advocated by their members. Their annual meeting arrived at a certain decision supporting a ban on overtime. The miners leaders, the executive, not satisfied with that, then referred the whole matter to district level, and at district level back to branch level. Here we get the real voice of the miners, who understand what is really involved; who understand that it is not a 13 per cent. increase all round; who understand all the difficulties of the very small number of men involved. This is at a time when the miners and the trade unions themselves know the difficulties of the industry; how the industry is going down because between 600 to 800 men per week are leaving the industry and seeking jobs either in "lump" labour or wherever it may be.

781
The mining life must be a terrible life; living among them and having very early experience of it, I know something about it. It is a very difficult life indeed. To prevent overtime and get good working arangements, the conditions, wage rates and so on must be of such a nature that they attract people into the industry. It is all very well for us to sit on these red Benches and tell these practical men what they shall do. These are men who are actually at the front in the productive effort, who understand these things, and the sooner the Government face up to this and realise what is taking place the better.
My noble friend who spoke a few minutes before me asked "Where have all the flowers gone?" In other words, we are told that men are leaving the mining industry, men are leaving the railways, men and women are leaving the Hospital Service. There is also the difficulty of civil servants; they are leaving local government. Where are they all going to? This is the question that the Government should be analysing, and I am sure that if they had the foresight to look at these things in the correct light emergency powers would never have been necessary; the deficit in our balance of payments would not have been anything so great as it is. The crisis that is upon us—even talk of a National Government to deal with these things—is due to the 'complete ineptitude and incompetence of this Government, and until they put their own House in order the nation faces some very difficult tasks indeed.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question? If we increase the wages of those sections of the community to whom he referred, the miners and the other areas where we are short of labour, who is going to have less? Because at the moment not everybody can have more. If the wages of one section of the community are increased, because there is only so much national cake sooner or later it must be at the expense of others. Could the noble Lord explain how he will do this conjuring trick, or, failing that, who will then have less?
LORD POPPLEWELL: Well, my Lords, there might be such a thing as a curb on profits. There are men such as the chairman of the Fatstock Marketing
782
Board receive an increase of £16,000 a year, the Chairman of Leylands, £60,000, the chairman of Fords, £40,000–people of that description. Men and women engaged in the productive plant realise these things. It is the maladjustment that is taking place; in other words, the way the national cake is now being eaten into and a greater share going to the wealthier sections of the community. That cannot be the way to deal with it.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord was very kind and did not interrupt me, so I waited until the end of his speech. I would say only one thing. Will he read the remarks in my speech on the point that he has just made?
4.49 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, seldom have I listened to a speech more reactionary in its content and more vested with prejudice against the trade unions and the working classes of our country than that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He demanded, in almost acidulated language, that everybody should make sacrifices for the nation. That is a very high moral attitude to adopt, but it is the kind of demand that could be made in the City of London or at the Conference of the Institute of Directors or perhaps a body of building speculators, of land-grabbers and the rest of them. Of course it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen, every right-thinking citizen, to be ready to make sacrifices for the nation to which he belongs. That one would accept. But there must be fairness all round. There must be justice, when it comes to sharing the cake. However limited that cake may be in its circumference, at any rate in its content the share must be a just one.
If the noble Viscount had addressed himself to that side of the coin one might have been ready to listen to him without any feeling of anger, mixed with sorrow, that such a speech could be made in an Assembly of this character. It was reminiscent of the 'eighties of the last century, when the dockers of London demanded 6d. an hour and the then Lord Devonport—nobody more reactionary—the boss of the docks, demanded that, because of this "revolutionary action and demand on the part of the London dockers for 6d. an hour"

783
the troops should be brought out to deal with them. The speech we have heard from the noble Viscount is reminiscent of that attitude. We have had it far too often in the course of this century. We had it from the Marquess of Salisbury who led the Conservative Government at the close of the Boer War and the beginning of this century. We almost had it from Arthur Balfour, who did not believe that the working classes existed. We had it from Herbert Asquith, who sent the troops down to South Wales because the miners had gone on strike. They had gone on strike for what? For a minimum wage, which eventually had to be accorded to them. This is the kind of attitude that is far from beneficial in its results.
What have we been discussing to-day? It is not the economy of the nation.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like just to ask him whether he realises that I have said almost nothing, or implied nothing, of what he is now accusing me; absolutely nothing to do with wages. In fact I said that I was in favour of reducing the wealth of the very rich people and making a distribution of that. May I ask him please to read my speech to-morrow and in future not to make accusations that have no relevance to what has been said?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, that was a quite irrelevant interruption. It persuades me to deal rather more thoroughly with the noble Viscount, because he played one of these propaganda tricks. I wonder if noble Lords observed it. As an old campaigner, accustomed to Parliamentary methods and manoeuvres, I detected it at once. Short of a rational argument he brought in the Communists. He mentioned one prominent Communist. I have not that gentleman's acquaintance. He then obviously quoted from a book that has just been written by an ex-Member of Parliament, Woodrow Wyatt, or at any rate from a television programme—the language was precisely the same. He spoke about 40 per cent. of the Executive of the Engineers' Union being Communist. We have heard it all before. It is a clever trick, but everybody in his or her senses knows that the trade
784
union movement, generally speaking, is a very moderate organisation. In fact, it has never endeavoured to adopt a revolutionary position at all. That is unchallengeable on the facts. It is on the record. All that those in the trade union movement have asked for was a higher standard of living. Who prophesied that but a prominent Conservative, 20 years ago, "Rab" Butler, now Lord Butler, when he said that in the course of the next twenty years or so the living standards of the people of our country would be doubled. That was his promise. Has it been fulfilled? Of course not. Does the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, wish to interrupt?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sorry, I was just making a comment.
LORD SHINWELL: No, my Lords, I thought not.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, if the noble Lord challenges me, I would say that Lord Butler's prophecy has more or less been borne out, but I would say that it was not enough.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if you take into account the cost of living, and the comparative affluence in this country of those in the top drawer and those at the bottom level, I think that perhaps the noble Earl needs a little more education in industrial history. I will leave it there. If at any other time he wants to engage in a debate with me, I will take him on three times before breakfast.
As I was about to say, we are not discussing the economy of the nation, we are just discussing a very simple issue—complex it may be, but simple in its presentation—and that is whether it is desirable that the Government should introduce emergency powers. I say at once that every Government have that right. It depends entirely on the circumstances. The question we have to consider is whether emergency powers, and the regulations associated with those powers, are likely to produce beneficial results. One judges by results. Moreover, one has to consider, in this context, upon which leg the Government stand. I made up my mind about it right away, whatever disagreements there may be on the other side about what I now propose to say; and that is that the sole purpose, the exclusive purpose, of producing the

785
emergency powers and regulations was as a threat to the miners; in fact, intimidation. I use the present jargon, "blackmail".
Why do I say this? Because of the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I ask noble Lords to note what he said. He dealt just in passing with the electrical engineers' dispute as a matter that could be resolved; at any rate, nothing serious had happened. That is what he said. Then he referred to the adverse balance of payments. But then the figures could easily be adjusted; some mistakes had been made; there was some trouble at Heathrow, some trouble with the postal authorities; we had been perhaps importing rather too much at a particular period, and there are always oscillations and fluctuations when we come to imports and exports. How right he was! Of course that is not the reason. It is serious, because for obvious reasons it is not desirable to have too much of an adverse balance of payments. But that is not the reason for the emergency powers. The reason for them is as a warning to the miners.
My noble friend Lord Popplewell and my noble friend Lord Blyton, in one or two interjections, referred to the wages of the miners. I am not going to discuss that subject except to mention that Mr. Daly, the General Secretary of the Mineworkers' Union, said the other day, "Of course if Mr. Heath and others wish to have a shift or two in the mines, they are welcome." We ought to realise what sort of work it is. We ought to realise that there are fatalities every day in the pits. I do not want to be emotional. What is the good of it, anyhow? I almost said "What is the good of it in this Assembly?", but I know there are very decent people in all parts of this Assembly, and sometimes one becomes emotional and concerned about the wellbeing of others. But in a situation of this kind prejudice and bias reappear in the most formidable form, and sometimes in the most vicious form. It does not produce beneficial results.
Now what is to be done about it? I wonder whether noble Lords realise what is likely to happen if the miners continue with their opposition to the Coal Board's offer and go on strike—because this overtime ban may lead to a general strike
786
among the miners. Suppose that happens. What do the Government do? That is a fair question: What do the Government do—go on warning them? I understand the Central Electicity Generating Board and the area boards have about 13 weeks' coal in stock, and that will last for some time, but what happens after that? Let us not forget that after the General Strike, which led to the humiliation of many trade union leaders and the trade union movement in general, the miners remained out for eight months on nothing—no strike pay, nothing. We are dealing with very determined people. We are dealing with people who feel that they have a stake in the country and ought to have a real share in what is going.
Would any noble Lord present in this Assembly this evening deny that the miners' wages are inferior, with all the work that is entailed, including the overtime? That is what the trouble is about —the overtime, the unofficial hours. It is not the ordinary rate of pay: it is the work that they do not want to do but which they must do to keep the pits going. Would any noble Lord deny that their rates are much inferior to the rates which are being paid to building labourers? It is not only the "lump" people. I have seen the advertisements in the Press and I have noticed them on the boardings—£2 an hour for building labourers, £3 an hour for bricklayers. Some of them are boasting that they are earning £150 a week. The miners say, "What about us?" I think the argument runs this way. I do not know whether noble Lords would agree that it is a perfectly impeccable argument, but I venture to use it. The argument runs: "If some sections of the community can get very high wages—much higher than they deserve—why should we suffer low wages? Why do the Government not do something about it? "The fact is that the Government do not do anything about it—nothing at all. They talk of this "lump", as it has been referred to, in the building industry. The Government never do anything about it. The "lump" does not even pay taxes. But it goes on.
Now I want to come to what is the real issue. We are told that there is a crisis. How many crises have I seen since I came into public life! This country has been down and out many

787
times. It was down and out, so it was alleged, after the Boer War; it was down and out after the First World War; it was down and out after the Second World War—but there was always the power of recuperation, and it still exists. Despite what may be said on either side of the political fence, it still exists. I do not agree with some people, economists for the most part. Oh, how I wish we could rid ourselves of these economists! I heard some of them last night on television, arguing with each other. If I may say so with great respect—the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is not present, and I can therefore say it with impunity—the legal profession can see both sides of the coin at the same time. They can argue both ways; they can see both sides of the question. It is the same with these economists. They are just a nuisance. It is far better to use common sense about it. Take the question of the balance of payments. What really is the trouble? We are importing more than we should import—that is the first point—and we are exporting far less than we should because we are using a lot of stuff in this country which we ought not to be using and which ought to go for export. That is what it is all about. I am no economist, but there it is—the whole case. We have got to put that right. How it is to be put right is a matter for the Government, and I do not see that the Government are capable of doing it.
Now I come to one member of the Government, the right honourable Peter Walker—the "whiz kid" of the Government. He is a financial pundit, as we all know. What does he say? "Crisis? No, no—everything in the garden is lovely. There is no trouble at all. Our exports are competitive". I heard him say that last night. He says, "There is no trouble"; and he frowns when he says it, as if the idea that anything is wrong with this country is absurd. Is he not in the Government? He says there is nothing wrong, that there is no crisis. Is there a crisis or is there not? In my view there is a crisis which will pass if we have the common sense and the good will to tackle it. That is my opinion. How is it to be done? You do not do it by issuing Regulations and taking emergency powers which the miners would
788
regard as a threat. You do not warn the miners: you bring the miners together with the Coal Board. Have an inquiry at once. Do not wait—hear the case. Let the country hear the case, though it is not for the country to decide; that is for the Government. If the Government feel that nothing further can be done and can make out a case in support of their attitude, the country will be with them; but the case has got to be made out.
There is one final point—oil. Is the crisis about oil? I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who speaks with such remarkable facility and knowledge. She asked: "Why do we not immediately adopt the rationing system?". I do not know. I do not own a car; it matters nothing to me. They can abolish all the cars so far as I am concerned. But it is a private service and a public service, and must be maintained. Therefore, there must be lubrication. It is the most amazing situation. The Government say, "We have got assurances". They have said this over and over again. Every time we raise the matter they say, "We have got assurances". From where we do not know, but they have got assurances that everything is all right. It is said that the oil will come, that it will flow, and that therefore there is nothing to get excited about. Mr. Peter Walker says this. He says, "The time will come when we have to face it, but at the moment we have no trouble about it; we have assurances." Could we know a little about these assurances? Where do they come from? Why do not the Government come clean about it? I do not think they have any assurances at all; I think it is just a piece of deception. They are trying to work up an attitude of confidence. But if they have assurances and I am wrong, then let them show me where I am wrong. That is a fair point to put to the Government.
There is another point. Is it not an ironical situation, this oil business? I can recall when the first British Petroleum Company was established, arising out of the old shale oil industry in Scotland. I can remember it. I can remember William Fraser, who became Sir William Fraser and then a Member of this Assembly; and I believe his son is now a Member of this Assembly. I remember the Government following the First World War deciding to have a stake in the British

789
Petroleum Company. I think it is 51 per cent., or it may be 49 per cent. But who started this oil business in the Arab States? It was British capital and American capital. The sheikhs never dug for the oil. They had no money and they had no influence. The money was provided by investors from the United Kingdom and investors from the United States of America. Now we are all held up to ransom by these people. What are we going to do about it? Have the Government got the foggiest notion how to tackle this problem? Because if they have they ought to tell us; and if they have not they should tell us, so that we know where we are. Because if they tell us they do not know how to handle the problem then rationing is essential at the earliest moment to conserve what we have.
My Lords, I end by saying this. The Government have introduced these emergency powers for obvious reasons. They have a right to introduce these emergency powers; that I will not deny; that is the Government's responsibility. If no beneficial results accrue the Government will be to blame. If they can persuade the miners to accept the offer of the Coal Board, well and good. It is a matter for the miners. But nobody in this assembly, whether on this side of the House or on the other, has a right to tell the miners what they should do. Nobody has this right. Leave it to the miners to decide. If they do what is wrong, we will suffer and probably they will suffer. If they do what is right it will be in accordance with their convictions and principles —and to that we should take no exception whatever.
5.11 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Shinwell—I nearly said, "my noble friend 'Manny' Shinwell". When I sit down, I hope that he will be equally glad. The reason I say this is that I remember a long time ago—it always seems a "long time ago" when one is getting on—in the early 1950s being greatly honoured when "Manny" Shin-well (as he then was) invited me to spend a weekend in the Seaham constituency to do some meetings. My Lords, I felt I had "arrived"; because although it has never heel my good luck, obviously, to work in the mines, I had always had a special
790
affinity with the miners. My mining colleagues in another place were grand friends and I had worked in South Wales. I say this because I hope to-night that I have a rational argument; and I am not looking for Communists. Nobody who has known my noble friend Lord Shin-well, in this House or in the other place, would ever deny that he says what he thinks. He says it with vigour and then he is finished with it. I hope to be non-aggressive and non-abrasive—and I am not accusing him of that—and I hope that at the end, whether he agrees or not, he will think I have a rational argument.
I want to-night to make an appeal. I think that there are certain times when one has to say what one really thinks. Sometimes this is difficult. After all, it may be said in the mere 30 days that these Orders are going to last who are we on the Back Benches to think that what we can say is going to have any effect. But this House is a kind House. In this House, too (and I have been in both), we do try to examine matters objectively, and this is what I want to do to-night.
For the first part of what I want to say I have divided my remarks into three very brief sections. For the second part I have taken the main point out of each section and I should like to comment on it. This is the first. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Edward Short, speaking on Saturday last, November 10, of Labour proposals for an incomes policy, said that Labour leaders:
"…believed that a statutory incomes policy is unworkable except with a quite unacceptable degree of injustice."
He went on to say:
"We have come firmly to the conclusion that the only credible kind of incomes policy is in effect an effective prices policy in a socially just climate."
He then went on to say that the trade union leaders were responsible men,
"and have the wellbeing of Britain at heart as much as anyone else."
The two points in this section to which should like to return at the end of my speech—because it is easier for me to do it this way and I hope it is easy for Members of your Lordships' House—are the "socially just climate" and the "wellbeing of Britain". Before doing so, I should like to say something about

791
Edward Short. I have known him for 23 years, ever since I got into another place, and I have a great respect for him. I should have thought there was nobody in any part of either House who would not agree that to look at Ted Short is to make evident his complete integrity. That, I believe, is obvious to everybody.
My Lords, I come now to my second section. Stage 3 of the incomes policy, in the opinion of many people (I know that that is a loose phrase, but still I say it) has been designed to allow the miners, and others whose work is particularly awkward and inconvenient, to obtain the maximum increase in pay. I even saw it written the other day, I do not know with what validity, that somebody from the Coal Board had helped to write in the "unsocial hours" part. To the a-political observer, to the non-Party observer, I think it would appear as though this Government came in with a Conservative policy and are now advocating a Socialist one. There is little doubt that many Conservative voters are of this opinion. I think that nobody would deny that any incomes policy inflicts hardships. Nor, I think, would anybody deny that any particularly unjust cases coming to light should be investigated and, if possible, helped or remedied—and I have written the words in red in my notes—"within the policy". I should like to come back to the phrase "within the policy", if I may; and I am now coming to my third section.
My Lords, it would seem that the package offered by the National Coal Board is an effort (shall I say?) to give the miners more than the car workers. We are told—and I have listened to my friends this afternoon—that they were offered an increase of 13 per cent. minimum, with a possible productivity addition of 3½ per cent. and that this has been turned down. I should like to say that if my noble friends on this side say that those figures are not correct, I will accept that.
A NOBLE LORD: They are not correct.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the other point that I should like to make is that we would all agree that to talk of "average wages" gets nobody anywhere.
792
I want now to come to a more important point. The figures of 13 per cent. and 3½, per cent. have been given, and we can leave them there. But why have the N.U.M. turned them down? The N.U.M. say that this is not enough. They say that what they gained last year has been eroded by inflation and that therefore they have been left behind. They state also (and I have heard this from Mr. Gormley and from Mr. Lawrence Daly) that they are fighting the Government and not the Coal Board. To the outsider, to people not connected with mines, it would appear that inflation did gather speed after the settlement with the miners last year—a settlement in which the public were on the miners' side. I think there is no doubt at all about that. But what helped inflation to gather speed? What helped it gather speed was that the other unions used the award to the miners to bolster up their claims. They all became special cases, too.
The miners believe that their job merits their being at the top of the wages table. If I remember rightly, in 1938, before I even got into another place (the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, can tell me whether I am right or wrong) the miners were complaining—and, although I knew nothing about it, I thought rightly—that they had moved down to 38th in the "league table". The miners believe that their job merits their being at the top of the wages table. I would have a difficult job with my car workers if I were still sitting as the Member of Parliament for Coventry. But Coventry, anyway, is now in the past. I would have thought that the miners' claim is pretty strong. I cannot think of anybody who would want to work down a mine for whatever money he was offered. I think everyone would accept that to be so. Here, of course, I cannot embark on the other aspect of the matter because it would lead us into the whole question of the social values of different kinds of work, which is a problem we are not dealing with to-day.
My Lords, I have said that no one would want to be a miner whatever wages he was paid. Therefore the public would agree that any claim the miners make is a strong one. But so are the claims of the nurses, the firemen, of hospital workers and transport workers.

793
They are all strong cases. The second reason for turning down the offer is because of the Government's policy, and the N.U.M. is determined to bring down the Government, and to bring them down by industrial action.
I should like now to move back to the first section of my speech, and to say something about a socially just climate. I think that a socially just climate must seem at the present time to be the millenneum. It is a very, very long way away, and so long as present attitudes continue, whichever Party is in power in this country it will be equally far away—I would think the lifetime of us all. Anyway, it is a very long way away. A socially just climate! What about the commuters on the railways? What about the passengers in the buses? I sat in a bus for half an hour to-day at Oxford Circus. What about the unions without the power of the "big battalions"? What about the old-age pensioners whose increases are swallowed up by inflation? Does anyone, in your Lordships' House or outside, imagine that the British public, deprived of trains, deprived of buses, deprived of light, deprived of heat, deprived of their holiday, or part of it, because of industrial action at the airports, think that we are anywhere near a socially just climate? I was going to say that we could listen to anybody outside; I expect that we form part of the "people outside" when talking about these things.
My Lords, what about the people with small fixed incomes; not the rich, just those who have worked all their lives and saved for retirement. I expect that some of us are affected; but let us deal with the general public and not ourselves. What about them? I have never heard even lip service for them from any Party. There are millions of such people. What are they going to do? The value of their life savings has gone down—by how much? Is it not 20 per cent.? And shall I say in the last couple of years? Anyway, I know that it has gone down 20 per cent. Never mind the large increases; the smallest increase in wages anywhere does not come to them. This is the effect of the backround. What are they going to do?
Last Monday, my Lords, we heard that on Monday next there is to be a one-day strike by some of the train drivers at
794
Waterloo Station. Yesterday we heard that drivers on London Underground are demanding a series of stoppages. Such action, they claim, would immediately paralyse services. What about the public, my Lords? I do not look only at the Government, I look at everyone in your Lordships' House. What about the public? The public just do not count today anywhere. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this particular case—and for this particular case have gone back to London Transport—or of any other, I think it must be obvious to us all, in this House and outside in the country, and whatever our political views, that we cannot go on like this. I think that that must be accepted.
I do not like saying so, my Lords, and I shall probably get into trouble for doing so, but I always thought that my Party stood for people like these commuters. I always thought that we fought for the weak and the poorly paid, those without union power to hold the public to ransom. In short, I thought that we stood particularly—it is what brought me into the Labour Party—for the ordinary citizen who just gets pushed around. But I have not heard any official condemnation from my side. I was glad to note the speech this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I do not wish to involve the noble Lord, and if I just say I drew comfort from it perhaps that will do. But in all this trouble I have not heard it said—not in public, not as a statement of policy—that these things are wrong. The words are always hedged about to avoid a definite commitment. Is nobody going to condemn this treatment of the public? Is there no one with the courage, whatever side they may be on, to get up and say, "This won't do"? My Lords, can we have any national wellbeing while this sort of thing goes on? I hold no brief for this Government, for the same reason as many on this side of the House. I think that they have offended greatly against the public conscience on land prices, on rents, on food prices, on housing—and so we could go on. But they are the elected Government of this country.
My Lords, what I have been saying has not been easy for me to say, and I hope that I have been relatively agreeable. I have belonged to my Party for 30 years—I know that there are many

795
who have belonged to it for much longer—and it means as much to me as to those of my friends who think differently from me. I believe that at the moment my Party is on the wrong road, just as those of my friends who think differently from me believe that it is on the right road. I think that all of us in this House (I know this to be true of noble Lords on this side) believe that if you think something in your Party is wrong, all you can do is to stay in the Party, if they will have you, and try to get it altered. Do not go out of it and criticise; stay in and take what is coming to you. There are occasions when the wellbeing of Britain is at stake. I would doubt whether there is a man or woman to-day whatever their political Party, who does not realise that that is the case at the moment.
My Lords, we are all politicians, more or less. I think we know that the recent by-elections have shown that the country has no belief in either of the two major Parties. There must be a reason. I think that people have had enough. They believe that they will be pushed around whichever Party is in power. They do not say that one Party is as good as the other; they say that one is as bad as the other, and they ask, "What is the use?" I think we know that. I believe that at the moment there is a crisis. I believe that there is a crisis for Government, for Parliament and for democracy. In short, soy Lords, who is to govern this country: the elected Government, until it is rejected at the ballot box, or the trade unions? It is as simple as that. I would beg my noble friends, on this side of the House, even if they do not agree with me, to realise that this could happen to us: it could happen to any Government. It is a question that has to be decided.
Now, I think this particular Government have brought much of this trouble on themselves but, my Lords, by no means ail of it. I believe that the leaders of the political Parties in another place should stand up publicly in that place arid say that Parliament has decided that industrial action for political ends has reached such a pitch that it must be brought to an end. The other way I think lies anarchy and the destruction of our democratic system. My Lords,
796
if Parliament does not intervene by its leaders in all Parties to say this industrial action has no place in our society, then we shall have no democratic society left at all, much less a socially just one. Therefore I think we should support the Government in declaring this State of Emergency and in moving these Regulations.
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hardly dare speak after that. I have admired the noble Baroness opposite, not least for her hat, but especially for what I consider one of the most encouraging and brave speeches I have heard in an admittedly short time in this House.
It appears to me, as it appeared to Lady Seear, that there are three crises with us at the moment: oil, which we could do precious little about; coal, which we might do a little about, and electricity which we might do a little about. But by far the most important one is inflation. Before 1931, we controlled inflation by staying on the gold standard. That gold standard was rigid and brutal, and created 2 million unemployed people in this country. There are certain well-known Liberal politicians who would make excellent Chancellors of the Exchequer to Mr. Gladstone—and by that I mean Mr. Enoch Powell, who seems to want to go back to the form of gold standard and monetary supply. It seems to me to be much too harsh, too cruel and too unkind.
Since 1961, and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's "Pay pause", all Governments, whatever they have said in Opposition, have finally come round to a statutory incomes policy. It is very easy to be rude about a statutory incomes policy when you are in Opposition: it is very difficult to put one into effect when you are in power. It seems to me a little silly of the Party opposite to advocate just controlling prices and not controlling wages. Inflation is a serious business. As I have said, we cannot control it by the old-fashioned gold standard method, and we have therefore to control it by an incomes policy. This incomes policy is easy: t the end of six months, no increase. That is easy. Stage 2 gets more difficult. Stage 3 tends to have great difficulties in it and a lot of holes; and this is where the people industrial muscle can drive through it.

797
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, was talking about the ordinary public who do not have that industrial muscle. But the members of the National Union of Mineworkers—about whom, basically, we are talking at the moment—are members of the ordinary public. They are sensible, if I may say so; they are very conservative people with a long history of service and hardship, and above all a long history of very close togetherness isolated from other sections of the community because of their jobs, where the pit villages are, and so forth. Therefore it is no use telling the coal miners to do this, do that or do a third thing. They have to be persuaded. And this is what the Government are trying to do in this issue. What they are saying is, "We have the emergency powers in reserve. We do not much want to use them unless we absolutely have to. While we have them in reserve, we will try to persuade the ordinary rank and file of the mineworkers that it is in their interests, as members of the British public, to try to follow this incomes policy. Otherwise, we have anarchy. If we have anarchy, the nurses, the teachers and the poorer members of society and pensioners—all of whom get talked about, though too often not enough is done about them— will go straight up against the wall: somebody will start hitting them with sledgehammers, and they will really suffer. Unless we have this incomes policy, this is what will happen.
Therefore, my Lords, I am going to support the Government hard to-night on these emergency measures because the incomes policy is so important. It is not a case of threatening the miners. I hope that the emergency measures are going to be used sensibly and constructively to persuade people that everybody is in this together, and to try to persuade miners that the attitude of Mr. Gormley (I think it was), who said, "We are not fighting the Coal Board; we are fighting the Government", must be wrong. It is not in their interest this should happen. I have spoken five minutes too long, my Lords, and I will now sit down.
5.37 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on the logic of her speech; it hung together. It was only
798
right and proper that in her conclusion she should give unqualified support to a Conservative Government. That is the logic of what she said. However, I want to help her. I think she ought to bring her alibis up to date. Currently the Conservative Government are not blaming the miners for the inflation. They were up until last year, and they were for their first two and a half years in office. Of course, then the responsibility for inflation was wage induced; it was rapacious demands by the trade unions—they were responsible for inflation—by the exercise of what has been described as the wrong use of democratic power. But, of course, a few months ago—and unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has not yet caught up—they changed the tune. They turned the record over. They do not go along that line now. Now the reason is world prices. So, therefore, Lady Burton's excellent speech was spoiled by just that one point; she got her alibi wrong.
My Lords, I think it is a sign of increasing age that when things happen my mind begins to work as if I have been to the picture before; that I have been here before, listened to it all before. My mind went back vividly yesterday afternoon, when the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, was congratulating the Government over their defeat in the cod war, or from these Benches there were congratulations on their standing up to the miners. I went out and looked up at Mr. Churchill—Mr. Churchill is always invaluable as an aide memoire. He recalled for me what happened with the Baldwin Government. He said, "There we are, defeat after defeat." Never mind how bad things then were, there was always somebody to congratulate. "But, "he said, "of course, there was a bill to be paid." It has taken this country a long time to pay it, and it has not paid it yet.
I ventured yesterday afternoon to brave the titters from noble Lords opposite when I mentioned my own association with the miners and my record as a trade unionist, which happens to be much longer than that of the noble Lord who spoke about his record. I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I left the Army in 1938 and worked with the Workers' Education Association at a princely salary of £2 18s. 9d. a week. I worked among

799
the clubs which existed in a little township in Staffordshire, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, afterwards represented in another place, which had 100 per cent. unemployment. All the mines had been closed. We had visits from the Duke of Kent and from other members of the Royal Family; and they sent deputations from Eton College. They came to see these wild miners and how they lived. They found them very docile, and attending church on Sundays. They said that the miners were unemployable and would never work again. They were used to heavy manual work; they had arthritis and pneumoconiosis, and nobody wanted them any more. And they did not want them any more, until 1940, when they found them jobs quickly enough. But they found them work not for constructive purposes, not for peace; they found them work for destruction. I very much hope that the jobs they did in the factories which were established on the Cheshire border and Stoke-on-Trent continued after the war.
When the war was over I had the great good fortune to be invited by (and here I am going to use the expression "my right honourable friend") Lord Shinwell to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I went to him one afternoon, and he said: "What do you think of this?"—and he showed me the stock figures of coal, which were a war secret. Nobody had ever revealed what the stocks were. It was 11 million tons, with a manpower shortage that was acute, because vast numbers of people had come into the mining industry who did not do one shift a week. I noticed this afternoon that when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—for whom I may say I have a great respect—was bandying with statistics (the trouble about statistics is that you handle them selectively, and when you have as good a mind as that of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, you make what use of them you like) he was selective, but I did not want to interrupt him. He said nothing about the current stock position. My noble friend inherited a stock position of 11 million tons, with an army to be demobilised, being brought back from every quarter of the world, wanting jobs; the reconversion of industry from war to peace. What have the Government got now? They have
800
36 million tons, with 22 million tons distributed. So please do not tell us that this emergency is related to a shortage of coal, or to a possible shortage of coal, because we have seen all this before. Then, again—and here we worry about the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and this brilliant mind of his—does the noble Lord not see the illogicality of this position? Coal likely to run out through men not working overtime. Oil in very great doubt. Emergency for one, but no emergency for the other. It does not hang together.
Yet of course I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and disagree with "my right honourable friend" Lord Shinwell. Of course we are in a crisis. I am something of a Marxist. I do not apologise to anyone for that; many people have been Marxist and anti-Communist. I would not want to live in a totalitarian society. But I recognise the power of the Marxist analysis. This country is reaching the logic of the position, because imperialism is in crisis. It is now over the divide; we have passed into the fates that Marx foretold, into a state of permanent crisis. And the most significant thing that has happened this year, which was a curtain-raiser and a prelude to the troubles in the Middle East, was the meeting of the non-aligned Powers in Algeria—76 of them. It produced no tension. Why should it? We were all preparing for the Royal Wedding. Let us deal with the things that matter!
Let us go back to the start of our troubles in 1956. What led up to them? It was the meeting in Brioni between the great neutralists—between Nehru, Tito and Nasser—and Mr. Foster Dulles at that time thought that to be non-alligned was to be guilty of a crime. So what did he do? He put the poor jittery Eden's head on the block, and put a finish to the support of the Aswan Dam. Khrushchev saw his chance and stepped in and they got the Oswan Dam, this miracle of making the Nile flow in the opposite direction. Incidentally, that produces a few problems, like the dam at Volta. Here were the great neutralists. But, of course, to-day the neutralists have become respectable. There are, as I say, 76 of them. I must say that I found myself greatly amused when I heard my noble friend Lord Popplewell and my

801
noble friend Lord Shinwell, and others, use the word "blackmail". In the name of God, in a capitalist society, to get as much as you can from the product you dispose of, to call that blackmail! I thought that was respectable. How did Harry Hyams amass a fortune of £300 million?—or is it £400 million? Was it by buying something dear and selling it cheap? Or how did the gallant Mr. Peter Walker make £1 million before he was 25? Was it from giving his savings away, or from gambling with somebody else's money?
Again, we talk about equality. I commend a study of this to the noble Baroness. Mr. John Moore, the richest man in England, with £600 million. This is respectable, you see. It is like fox-hunting, so dear to noble Lords opposite. When we hunt the fox it is respectable, but if the fox turned round and hunted us, that would be dastardly. This is why they are such humbugs. But their humbug has been shown up. Feisal and his friends now realise something. They listen to what you have to say, and they say: "It is better to keep a gallon of oil in the ground than to take one of your paper quids for it. Oil may be worth a bit more a decade on. You can paper the wall with your pound. "It does not apply only to oil, but to every commodity.
This, of course, is what is wrong with the Government's policy. They can only make it work if the terms of trade turn to the advantage of this country. From 1951 to 1964, 13 years, they stayed in power because the terms of trade were consistently in their favour. As soon as the terms of trade turned against them, then Mr. Maudling, that intellectual giant, proceeded to do, much more ably, I may say, because he is infinitely more able—he could not be less able—than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, exactly the same thing: he tried to spend his way out of it with a policy of expansion, and he bequeathed to us a deficit of £800 million. The Labour Party, guided by the ghost of Lord Snowdon, a Party of probity and a puritanical Party that really believes and tries to practise, so far as it can, a policy of monetary honesty, turned the balance of payments round and went from the red to the black. And at that moment
802
they estranged the miners, and they estranged all the trade unions.
Let me turn now to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I listened to bits of what he had to say, and I was shocked: and what shocked me was his appalling ignorance. How a man can stand in this place, being as old as he obviously is, and talk such absolute nonsense is beyond me. What is wrong with the Transport and General Workers' Union is not that it is not democratic—it is too democratic. This is the point. The poor general secretary has at every stage to weigh up what his members will take. He often has to do things with which he does not agree. But either you have leadership of the kind shown by the present Prime Minister, which is another name for obstinacy, or you have an honest and intelligent leadership in which you try to govern but in the ultimate the decision rests not with you or with your executive but with what your members tell your executive. If you do not accept that, your executive is out, and so is the leadership. That is basically the problem.
I well remember going with my noble friend Lord Shinwell to a meeting at a time when he was in great difficulties. His policy was to mechanise the pits and as he could, stage by stage, to meet the demands of the miners' charter. Many noble Lords in this House are old enough to remember the conditions at that time. If the miners had wanted, they could have had this nation over a barrel in 1945, 1946, and indeed into the early fifties. The critical point came at Grime-thorpe, because it was proposed to lengthen the stint, and my noble friend went down to Doncaster (and so did I, because the St. Leger was the next week) —and whom did he take with him? Will Lawther?—not on your nelly! Did he take the right wing leaders of the N.U.M.? He took Arthur Homer, the Communist; and that brave little man stood up and faced his own membership and fought for those things that were necessary for the well-being of this country, at a time when the miners were in a position to enforce their power. I well remember a Sunday morning meeting which went on until the evening, and the miners said, "You can starve us to death, but you cannot work us to death."

803
To go back again to what I experienced in North Staffordshire before I joined the Army. I learnt that when you are dealing with miners you are not talking to them, perhaps you are not even talking to their fathers or grandfathers, but you are talking to the echo, to the memory of what successive Conservative and Liberal Governments, to their undying shame, did to the miners in this country when they had not the power to resist. If you can put the case to them logically, get through to them and treat them with respect, it is a different matter. I stood for a constituency which once had miners and mines in it, and I live in such a constituency now outside Stoke-on-Trent, near to one of the very big pits of this country; so I know the miners. Please treat them with respect. They live an isolated, lonely life, and the way they have been treated leads them to believe they are outcasts. They are not outcasts any more, but the memory still hands on.
And please, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, do not quote phoney statistics at them. If you are going to quote statistics, at least take the trouble to understand what you are saying. Because if you look at a graph of what is offered by the N.C.B., you will find it is spread far too widely. The point was made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that it is only a minority of less than 10 per cent. that will get that 13 per cent. What is really wrong is the Government's policy. For the last few months I have found myself increasingly in agreement with Mr. Enoch Powell. We sat in constituencies side by side. There are many things he has said in the past with which I profoundly disagreed and I have said so, but what he has said about the Government's policy is right. It will not work. You can have a laissez-faire society, in which the pricing system operates—that is to say, where the decision as to whether to work in the mining industry, in a hospital, a "bingo factory", and so on, is left to the individual, and so is the price he can get for his labour. His parents, in turn, can decide how much investment they will put into their child's being trained as a doctor, a dentist, or a teacher against the rewards he will earn.
804
If you interfere with the functioning of the pricing system and you are not absolutely clear about it, then you are bound to run into trouble. It is no accident that, for example, in the Midlands workers are brought in from Ireland to drive buses, but they all want to go to work in the car factories, so there are no buses to take them to work. There are no window cleaners; there are no nurses. In the South-East there are all these other labour shortages, because you have a duality and this mixed system, which is neither one thing nor the other. As a democrat, I happen to believe, as I have said very often, in the philosophy of Nye Bevan—that is, that what our society in the West wants is a mixed society, in which one element, either the public sector or the private sector, must dominate. In a Socialist society which is run by a Labour Government the public sector dominates and the private sector is left free to get on with its work and to operate within the concept of a pricing system, which is either run or runs itself. If you do not do that you can get into a most unholy mess.
That is what has happened. I believe that the Prime Minister is a very sincere, very obstinate but extremely limited man. He did not expect to win the Election. Few people in his Party expected to win the Election; and so he made speech after speech without anyone pulling at his coat-tails and saying, "Wait a minute, Ted; you may be required to honour this cheque next week." So when he went into Downing Street on October 16, 1964, he was met with a battery of Opposition papers, and when he read those, to his horror he found out that neither Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Jenkins had been cooking the books. They had been telling the truth. So poor Ted could not then go back to the Tories and say, "Sorry, Selsdon man is stuffed." He had to start off with Selsdon man in the Industrial Relations Act, although, of course, if his advisers could have got at him they would have warned him what would happen. So for the first year or two you have Ted following through a policy which he was trying to run away from. And now—talk about broken promises!— he has gone completely round in his tracks. In the meantime the situation has become

805
so befuddled that it is like several balls of wool all mixed up together, and every step that he takes makes the next step one stage worse. That is why I say you have the Emergency Regulations today and it is no accident. I say to this House that it is no accident that you have had five Emergencies in three years as against one Labour Emergency in five years. My advice to the Government is, having got the Emergency Regulations through, not to take them off but to keep them on permanently.
I should like to conclude by returning to a theme I have mentioned before.I share with my noble friend Lord Shinwell a belief in the recuperative power of my fellow countrymen—but on one condition, which is that they must be told the truth. In 1940 what they were up against was dead simple—Hitler. Ernest Bevin became Minister of Labour, and the trade unions backed him, and the productive capacity was put into full gear overnight. But now we do not know what we are up against.
In the Communist bloc their philosophy is linked with conservation. They conserve their resources. They do not pump all their oil out of the ground, they hold stocks in reserve. Their productive capacity is strictly linked to this idea, and that is why they have no inflation. In the West, including the United States, it is not a case of conservation, but one of consumption. Here we have a raging, roaring inflation. I have in my hand a packet of credit cards, which I did not ask for, all of them for good money, encouraging me to buy. There is television advertising, and advertising on the radio. And look the newspapers! There is a roaring, raging rise in newsprint. There is the prospect of the Daily Express having to come down to seven pages. I am glad to see their profits halved. This was announced today. That is an act of God!
What of the future? We shall go on until at last there will not be any newsprint left. Therefore what is needed? Mr. Powell is absolutely right in saying there is this vast volume of money putting irresistible pressure on our productive resources. We have run out of labour; the investment has gone into the wrong things. The Government says "growth", not in experts but for home consumption, until of course the pricing mechanism which operates outside this country, but
806
does not operate completely here, brings Nemesis in its train. As Mr. Churchill said, here was this Administration, the most disastrous in our history—he did not know about this present one; but he said that there was a bill to be paid. And so the bill is going to be paid. I do not believe it will be paid by the present Government; the bill will be paid, as all the bills are paid, by the British people.
6.3 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, we on these Benches shall not vote against these Regulations; apart from anything else, they come so frequently that it would be tedious if we constantly had to vote against them. I have been in your Lordships' House for a matter of three years and during that time we have had the presentation of five sets of Emergency Regulations. I am told by my noble friend Lord Champion that this is the longest debate on Emergency Regulations that we have had in your Lordships' House, and the longest speech in this debate has been made by a noble Lord whose name was not on the list of speakers.
LORD WIGG: I was!
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: He was, my Lords, but he withdrew, and then came back on the list at the last moment. I think that in the circles with which my noble friend is well acquainted that is called a "late starter".
It is right that we should have had a longish debate on this matter because this is basically a political problem and one has to put it into its political context. There has been only one speech today that I deeply regretted, and that was the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth. I can see nothing whatever discreditable in being a member of the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Party or the Labour Party. If those Parties did not have members I do not believe that our democratic machinery would be able to work as effectively as it does. If in your Lordships' House, admittedly with a degree of detachment which is not always available in other places, we did not discuss these matters in a political context, the public and Press would be doing so, and I do not believe that that would conduce to the prestige of our Parliamentary machine. I must say that I

807
thought that the noble Viscount's high moral tone began to quaver a little when he started smearing the Labour Party as being under Communist influence. I thought that was a lamentable observation. If, as a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House, I say that it seemed to me to fall far below the traditions which I have always associated with this House, I hope that I shall be in order.
VISCOUNT HAWORTH: My Lords, may I just point out that I did not say it was? I quoted something from an interview on I.T.V. I make no personal judgment on that at all; I have not the facts. I was particularly careful to say that it was a report. It may or may not be true: I would not know.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Viscount was particularly careful not to say anything specific, but to indulge in about as discreditable a smear as I think could be possible for a noble Lord to indulge in, and I hope that in further debates in your Lordships' House we shall be able to avoid insinuations of that kind.
I made my maiden speech in this House on the subject of the setting up of the new super-Ministries, as they were called. I was critical at the time of the new mammoth Departments. Looking back, I see no reason to change my mind. Since then the giant Foreign and Commonwealth Office has earned the strongest rebuke from the Government of the United States that I can ever remember. It has incurred the bitter mistrust of Israel without apparently effectively appeasing the Arab States—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes to reply, will respond to the invitation from my noble friend Lord Shinwell to tell your Lordships what assurances we have had from the leaders of the Arab countries. Also, so far as I can see, the Foreign Office has signally failed to influence the European Community towards giving real help to Holland, if indeed it even tried to do so. That is not an impressive record achievement for one of the new super-Ministries.
If we turn to the Department of the Environment, we see that the housing figures this year will almost certainly be the worst since 1958. The figures
808
announced yesterday contrast badly with the corresponding period three years ago; and, if I may say so, they contrast even more badly with the 414,000 houses a year for which the Conservative Opposition at the time so severely criticised me when I was Minister of Housing. I am not criticising Mr. Channon. Mr. Channon is an efficient Minister and a very compassionate man. It is the Treasury and the Government's economic policy that are to blame. Remembering, too, the criticisms I had to sustain four or five years ago, I find it ironical to note the remarkable increase in the cost of building houses, the escalation of land prices and the need for record mortgage rates.
The third mammoth Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, has produced the largest deficit in our balance of trade that we have had, even without including that mere trifle of £75 million which appears to have failed to get included in the calculations because of some little industrial dispute affecting computers. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was a bit casual in dismissing this token sum of £75 million. While the Department of Trade and Industry has been running up this record, the borrowing rates to industry and traders, through the Government machinery, have gone up far beyond the modest figure of 14 per cent. used by Sir Hubert Newton in another context. Not surprisingly in all the circumstances we are faced with an emergency.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, discussed for a moment or two in a philosophical way why the Government are introducing these regulations at this stage. I confess, my Lords, that it is tempting to think that these regulations, imposed so soon after the miners' ban on overtime started, are a political manoeuvre to cover up a political and economic failure. After all, as other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wigg, have said, the stock position to-day is reasonably satisfactory. It is certainly substantially higher than it was at the time of the mining dispute last year, yet last year the State of Emergency came only in February, after weeks of an all-out strike. If the Government had wanted to conserve stocks they should perhaps have declared the State of Emergency a week ago. But that, of course, would have been highly

809
embarrasing with four by-elections last Thursday. Or the Government could have declared it a few weeks hence, avoiding that unnecessary exacerbation of industrial relations which was referred to so movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
The reason why the Government decided to wait was because they knew that the economic situation was rapidly deteriorating. They wanted to blur the issue. If the situation is so desperate, why not have petrol rationing now? The reason, of course, is that if we had petrol rationing now they could not blame that on the unions in the way that they can blame the coal situation on the unions. And one is tempted, with very great reluctance, to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government are seeking to create a situation in which it can have an Election on the theme of, "Who governs the country?"
I am as sorry as anyone that this winter electric blankets and colour television sets bought with Access cards will not be working—your Lordships will remember the moving advertisement for Access cards: "Access takes the waiting out of wanting".
The Government, who were so unsparing in their criticisms and so prodigal in their promises when in Opposition, have utterly failed to work out a modus vivendi with the trade union movement, and on that point at least I agree with my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry—and I hope she is still my noble friend—in what she said about the Government's failure to achieve a fair society. The truth is, my Lords, that this Government have divided the country to an extent that I have never known before, and they have shown a degree of cynical improvidence which makes Mr. Micawber seem like a far-sighted, meticulous budgetary planner. On the very day that the by-elections were taking place, exactly a week ago to-day—and I am indebted to yesterday's Daily Mail for pointing this out—the Prime Minister made a speech which the Daily Mail described as one of economic euphoria. I ask your Lordships to listen to these words of Mr. Heath:
"I believe that the prospects and opportunities for British industry to-day are more exciting and more solidly based than at any time since the Second World War."
810
Those were the words of the Prime Minister exactly a week before your Lordships' House is discussing the Emergency Regulations.
Yesterday morning, the Financial Times, under the heading, "Wait for the good news", said that last night Mr. Peter Walker was addressing the Insurance Debating Society on the subject "Britain Towards the New Commercial Greatness". Naturally I looked in the Press this morning to see how Mr. Walker handled that situation, which must have been a little difficult for him. I find in The Times, and I quote the words:
"Mr. Walker apparently dispensed with part of the speech prepared before Tuesday's trade figures …".
One really cannot be surprised at that. I have a great liking for Mr. Walker, but I must say that there was very little in the speech which he is reported to have made which gave me any great confidence in the future. Personally the only prophecy about the future which I would venture to make with any confidence is that there is going to be a long and sustained demand for candles, prayer mats and bicycles.
There was certainly very little in Mr. Walker's speech to give any comfort to the man who is paying 18 per cent. On his overdraft; to the housebuilders who are having to borrow housing finance in order to sustain their building programme, or to the building societies which were just looking as though they were getting out of their difficulties. I should like to say at this point how pleased I am that the Government have set up a joint committee with the building societies and if, as I believe, the talks are to take place to-morrow I am sure that all of us will hope that a successful outcome can be achieved.
Like my noble friend Lord Champion I am a democrat, and I have thirty-two years' membership of a trade union behind me. And like my noble friend, whose wisdom is of immeasurable benefit to your Lordships' House, I have no sympathy with any trade union leader —or indeed any local councillor—who sets out to defy the will of Parliament or the Government of the day. That, my Lords, is a game which both sides can play and both sides can lose, but the greatest loser would be our democratic

811
way of life. Having said that, I want to go on to say that I am deeply shocked that so many of our fellow-citizens do not realise how much we owe to the miners and the firemen and the postmen and the ambulance workers until they resort to industrial action.
There is something wrong with an industry which depends upon overtime. How fantastic that one of the most essential industries in this country, one which we are told to-day is absolutely essential, can only scrape along by men working overtime! And when, with nothing to do with Phase 2 or Phase 3 or any other part of the incomes policy, they decide that they will stop working overtime the Government announce that an emergency situation exists. But, my Lords, 700 miners a week are leaving the industry. That is the crisis; that is the emergency; that is the situation that noble Lords opposite have to deal with. It is no good passing regulations and thinking that regulations are going to stop this drain of 700 skilled workers every week away from one of our most essential industries. The Government really are playing about with trivialities and formalities without getting down to the basic problems. Whatever the percentage is (we have been bandying percentages about this afternoon), it is not enough to convince 700 miners a week that it is worth staying in the industry in order to earn it. Until we face up to that situation, the drain away from the industry will continue.
Why are public services in London grinding to a halt? Why is there a lack of social balance in so many parts of our society? I have the good fortune to live in Hampstead. When I first lived there we had a balanced community. It was a pleasant little village. We had rows of working-class houses occupied by postmen and by ambulance workers and all those other public servants who make life so much more tolerable for the rest of us. They have all gone now. The little working-class cottages have Georgian bay windows in them, and they are selling for £25,000 or £30,000, or more; and, of course we have an unbalanced community. We are a kind of a rich man's ghetto, instead of the socially balanced community that we ought to be. I would never stand the slightest chance of getting
812
there now. It was only my good fortune in going there over thirty years ago that enables me to be a citizen of Hampstead at the present time. But we are getting this social imbalance, and this is the basic unease and the basic discontent of many working-class people. We are getting this discontent because the postmen, the bus drivers, the firemen and the teachers cannot afford to live in the inner city areas where their services are required.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was most courageous: he did not like "union-bashing" but he gritted his teeth and courageously went forward and did it. I do not like "union bashing", either, and I deprecate as much as anyone actions of a minority of members of trade unions whose aim I believe is to achieve disruption. But, as I said earlier, I think it is quite monstrous to suggest that that influences the policy of the Labour Party. Although the noble Viscount said that he did not like "union-bashing", I am sorry to have to say that he really was guilty of it. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw the cartoon in the Daily Mirror to-day. It was a picture of a manager apparently talking to the chairman of a company, with a workman sitting in the antechamber, and the manager was saying to the chairman: "He's intelligent, well-informed and understands his rights—a real troublemaker." I had the feeling, when the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was speaking that he had something of that attitude to the trade unions.
But, my Lords, we shall not cure our sickness—for it is a sickness; and a serious sickness—by making either trade unions or the bulk of their members the scapegoats. The guilty men—and we are all to some extent guilty, but the most guilty men of all—are those who are sitting on the Government Benches. They have no solution whatever to the crisis to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred. They have lost the confidence of organised workers. They have failed to control the economy by making the most effective use of Government expenditure or by restricting surplus purchasing power in the pockets of private individuals.
We have in this country the must sophisticated, efficient and honourable

813
financial institutions in the world. I wish I could say the same for the manufacturers of this country. They have not been able to provide the capacity which is needed to match up to the Government's proclaimed expansionist ambitions. They have failed the country, just as I believe the Government have failed it. The basic failure is that we shall not be able to afford the standard of living that all of us demand, unless as a nation we can plan our affairs in a way which enables us to buy the raw materials that we do not have and to organise our industry in a way which gives a sense of justice to both workers and consumers. Unless we can do that, my Lords, we shall have recurring crises—and the sixth emergency will be just around the corner.
6.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging debate on these Regulations to-day and we have had some notable speeches. If I might mention in particular the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, it obviously captured the imagination of, and provoked thought from, everyone in this House. This is the first occasion in the three years since the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has come into the House that I have had the opportunity of replying to a speech he has made. I am hound to say that I thought he was at his most dismal to-day he seemed to be filled with gloom about everything. Obviously, I do not want to go into a wide-ranging debate at this time of night, particularly as we have another matter to discuss to-night, but I must say that noble Lords have not sufficiently appreciated what the Government have been trying to do and how far they have succeeded. They have taken all the sad features.
They have not mentioned specifically, for example, the enormous increase in what we have had to pay because of the world rise in prices—but this is a matter we can perhaps more conveniently debate on Tuesday. Nor have they mentioned the extraordinarily good position we are now in to compete in the world at the present time. What my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said was not in any way fantastic, it is the truth: that at the present time our prices are lower, and we are in a better position to compete in the world than
814
we have ever been. Investment has been building up this year and should, according to forecasts, when we can get through our present, immediate difficulties, build up even more next year. Our exports in volume are running at more than our imports, despite the situation last month. This is what we have been working towards, and if noble Lords on the other side all the time persist in being gloomy and decrying the future of this country, we shall be deprived of the success that we have been aiming for. I ask noble Lords to join with us in bending as much as we can towards the task of increasing our exports and balancing our trade.
The real point in this debate is: what has been the purpose of introducing these Emergency Regulations. My noble friend stated what the purpose was. Noble Lords opposite have regarded this with great suspicion. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, who I thought made, as always, an excellent speech, said that he suspected that it was because of the balance-of-trade figures. I must reassure him about that. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said that our introducing the Emergency Regulations at this time was designed as intimidation to miners. The noble Lord also asked: Is there a crisis? He implied that a proclamation should occur only if we were in a full crisis. But a proclamation is made under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Act of 1964. May I remind your Lordships of what that Act says:
"If at any time it appears to His Majesty"—
this relates to 1920–
"that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency), declare that a state of emergency exists."
That shows the purpose of the proclamation and the reason why we have these Regulations. It is simply because in the view of Her Majesty's Government there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of the nature set out.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? How can he in logic argue that an event is about to occur when 36 million tons of coal have been

815
extracted from the ground and 22 millions tons have been distributed? Twenty-two million tons is a far larger amount than we ever hoped to produce in a year in the 1950s.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not necessarily accept the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but I am coming to the point that he has made. As my noble friend has said, the fact is that a loss of coal production is happening and it could get worse. As he said, we are losing about 20 per cent. in production this week, and in a couple of weeks' time the loss could well be double that amount. There is also the possibility that we may be affected by the cut in supplies of oil from the Middle East; there is a risk that at any time there may be a breakdown somewhere as a result of the non-availability of electrical power engineers. Thus, with a simultaneous threat of shortage of coal and of oil there is obviously a risk to our supplies, not only of coal and of oil but also of electricity. In these circumstances, surely the sensible thing to do is to conserve our stocks as far as possible. The object of introducing the powers is, first, to enable the Government not only to take action to economise in the use of fuel but to make manifest to the public that economy is needed; and, secondly, to enable the Government to take, without delay, any further action that may be necessary.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? I distinctly read out the section of the 1964 Act, and under Section 36(2) there are powers permanently to use the Forces in any crisis, without an emergency being proclaimed and without 40 different regulations.
LORD DRUNIALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend explained very carefully that for the time being at any rate there is no intention of using the vast number of the powers contained in the Emergency Regulations. As I have said, the Regulations are in the form in which they were introduced on the last occasion, with the exception of water and sewerage, as my noble friend made clear. May I also tell the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his absence, and in response to the intervention during my noble friend's speech, that the provision on trespass is
816
in exactly the same form as it has been in recent years. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that Regulation 25, concerning the supply of medicines, is not new. It is in exactly the same form as the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations approved by this House on August 9.
These are the purposes for which the Government are introducing the Regulations. As my noble friend has said, on the last occasion we were criticised for taking action too late; on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Champion, tells us that we have been precipitate. But without emergency powers there can be no interference in the public interest with the ordinary rights of the public or statutory duties of the public corporations. This is right, and is as it should be, but it is not the purpose of the emergency powers to push people around. In her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, said that people were being pushed around, and I am saying that is not the purpose of taking the powers. Without the emergency powers the electricity corporations could well be in default of their obligations. Regulation 17 of the Emergency Regulations allows the electricity boards to fall short of their obligations to provide electricity and to maintain in accordance with the standards prescribed. Regulation 21 provides necessary powers to regulate or prohibit the supply or consumption of electricity to ensure supply to the most essential needs.
As for oil, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that we do not need Emergency Regulations in order to introduce oil rationing. That may be true, but the Government would need powers from somewhere and they would be able to introduce oil rationing, if they so wished, under the Regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked who it was who gave the assurances about oil. The noble Lord will not expect me to reply to that; he knows very well that it would not be in the interests of this country, or indeed of the people who gave the assurances.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has misrepresented me. What I suggested was that there were no such assurances at all. I suggested that if the noble Lord wanted to prove that I was

817
wrong he would tell me where the assurances came from. I assert that there have been no such assurances at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to assert anything he likes. One of the oldest ways of extracting information is to assert something and then invite a denial. I have told the noble Lord that it would not be in the interests of this country to give that information.
My noble friend Lord Onslow placed emphasis on persuasion in the settlement of the two examples of industrial action, short of a dispute which could bring about the events—and I hope very much they will not—which would have the result of depriving large numbers of people in this country of warmth, light, heat and possibly many other things as well. I very much hope that these disputes will be settled by negotiation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is departing from the Chamber. May I say that to him, as he is on his way, just as I hope that oil will flow freely again, even if more expensively, as a result of negotiation. The noble Lord asked what are our plans and how are we to get the oil. We had a debate on the longer term implications of this question very recently indeed; but in the shorter term to get the oil flowing again must obviously be a matter of agreement between the parties. I must say that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow that the emergency powers were taken only to be used as a reserve weapon if the miners will not listen to reason, although I very much hope that reason and moderation will prevail. It is relevant that we shall be debating the counter-inflation Orders on Tuesday, since the purpose of those Orders is to contain inflation in a way that is fair and just to all. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made a great point of fairness and justice, and this is exactly what we are aiming at.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, asked for the miners to be treated with respect. He made a most interesting speech in which he re-wrote history in his own way (as we are often apt to do) but I can assure him that the miners are being, and will be, treated with respect. The National Coal Board's offer amounts to nearly 13 per cent. overall. I quite understand his point, but this offer represents £44 million and it is important to remember
818
that the National Coal Board is trying to reach agreement on the basis of what they are permitted under the counter-inflation legislation. Within limits the offer is negotiable; they can do the same as any other representatives of employees and employers and negotiate within the limits of the counter-inflation policy. I submit to your Lordships that that is fair and just. In his speech my noble friend said that the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board would be meeting today. I understand that this meeting—and I quote—"went quite well". I hope, therefore, that we may look forward to a further meeting next week, and that the negotiations will proceed as well as they seem to have clone on this occasion.
My Lords, as for the electricity workers' dispute, there again the talks are continuing and it is the earnest desire of the Government that a settlement should be reached within the terms of its counter-inflationary policy. It would be quite wrong for your Lordships to think that we are taking these emergency powers on the basis that these negotiations are not going to be successful. We are taking powers on the basis that the negotiations may not be successful, and if they are not it will be a great disaster for this country. That is why we are taking them now, so that we can have the powers we need. I hope your Lordships will give support to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
6.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (Loin) ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before introducing it I should like to apologise to your Lordships who are taking an interest in this Bill for the fact that we have started somewhat late. This has been inevitable owing to the emergency and the introduction of the Emergency Regulations. It has also been an emergency for the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has now to speak a second time this afternoon.
My Lords, it has become something of a tradition, and one which I am sure we should welcome, that legislation on the

819
vital subject of road traffic is introduced in this House. The earlier Bills on this subject are now part of the fabric of history, and it is fascinating to observe in the debates of the Edwardian period a mixture of things which now belong to the past, such as impossibly low speed limits, 12 miles per hour from 1895 to 1903, and problems that are still with us, such as the growing density of traffic and the noise and pollution which it causes. The control of motor vehicles and of their social and environmental effects is now a major sphere of central and local government activity. We have come an incredible distance from the days, not 70 years ago, when an official could note on a file about complaints of noise from motor buses:
"On the whole, I doubt if they are as much nuisance as barrel organs."
The Bill which I now commend to your Lordships fully reflects the multifarious aspects of road traffic and the sophistication of the legislation to which it gives rise. It has no single unifying theme. It consists of a number of more or less radical amendments of existing legislation, and by this means it packs into a relatively small compass some very important reforms. A major part of the Bill makes provision for better means of enforcing certain parts of the road traffic law. Clauses 1 to 5 and Schedule I deal with owner liability, and Clauses 7 and 22 deal respectively with certain extensions of the fixed penalty system and an owner's duty to give information, and with the payment of the charges for vehicles removed from the roads.
First, the Bill provides for the registered owner of a vehicle to be liable, in addition to the driver, for certain minor stationary road traffic offences for which fixed penalty notices have been issued, and also for the offence of failing to pay an excess charge incurred at a parking meter. The fixed penalty system has been in existence since 1960 and it is now generally adopted by police forces throughout the country. It enables drivers who commit minor traffic offences to discharge their liability to conviction by paying a fixed penalty within 21 clays as an alternative to being prosecuted. In the past 13 years it has been widely accepted by the public. It has not only saved the police and the courts a vast
820
amount of work, but it has meant that a level of enforcement could be maintained which would not otherwise have been possible.
In recent years, however, its effectiveness has progressively declined because increasing numbers of people do not pay and persistently evade police inquiries. Most fixed penalty notices are issued when vehicles are unattended. If payment is not made, the police have to make inquiries through registered owners in order to trace the drivers. This has involved a considerable and growing burden of work for the police and traffic wardens. Many cases now go by default because drivers cannot be identified in time for proceedings to be taken. Many of these drivers are, in fact, themselves the owners.
The numbers involved are now considerable. About 2½ million fixed penalty notices were issued in England and Wales in 1972, but payment was made in only 64 per cent. of these cases, and then only after police inquiries, often prolonged, had been necessary in half of them. In the Metropolitan Police District alone, about 340,000 cases could not be prosecuted within the six months the law allows. Similar difficulties arise when excess charges are not paid. The introduction of owner liability to deal with this problem has been widely canvassed and carefully studied. Although in the last analysis an owner will be held liable, the provisions are structured in such a way as to minimise that possibility. The Bill preserves the basic liability of a driver. Where an owner is not a driver, it is only in special circumstances that he becomes liable. These are where he cannot persuade a driver to pay, or to sign a statement accepting liability.
Clause 1 and Schedule 1 together prescribe the arrangements for certain fixed penalty offences. The provisions are limited to offences alleged in respect of stationary vehicles. These are parking and waiting offences, lighting offences at night, and the offence of failing to display a valid vehicle excise licence. The Bill applies only to these offences where, first, a fixed penalty notice has been issued and, second, the driver has not paid within the period allowed. It does not take away a driver's liability but, where a fixed penalty notice has been issued for one of the prescribed

821
offences and where it has not been paid, it enables the police to serve a notice on the owner telling him he will be liable. This notice requires the owner to do one of three things within a prescribed period. He must either pay the fixed penalty, or secure its payment by someone else, or furnish the police with a statutory statement. If he, or anyone else, pays the fixed penalty, no further action will be taken against the driver or the owner. If payment is not made, he must comply with the notice by furnishing the statutory statement of facts under Schedule 1. If he fails to do either of these things, he can expect to be prosecuted for failing to comply with the notice. Clause 2 provides for the same procedure to apply in the case of excess charges.
Clause 3 deals with the position of hired vehicles and provides that the hirer shall be deemed the owner, for the purposes of these particular provisions, so long as the requirements in the clause are met. This provision recognises the different position in which the registered owner of a hired car stands. While it is reasonable to expect registered owners generally to exercise some degree of responsibility over the use of their cars, whether by family, friends, or employees, the owner of a vehicle hired out for a short period (defined in the Bill as less than six months) cannot be expected to exercise this sort of control over a hirer, despite the elaborate checking procedures which responsible vehicle-hire firms carry out.
The transfer of liability from owner to hirer is not, however, automatic. On the one hand, the hirer must sign a statement, called in the Bill a statement of liability, acknowledging that he will be treated as the owner for the purposes of the Bill. On the other hand, the firm must certify that the vehicle was on hire and furnish these two statements, plus a copy of the hiring agreement. If this is properly done, the police or local authority will serve a notice on the hirer who will from then on be treated as the owner for these purposes. This scheme has been discussed with and accepted by representatives of the vehicle hire trade. The Government believe that the scheme I have outlined will be an effective and a fair means of reversing the deterioration
822
of a highly advantageous system for dealing with the volume of minor road traffic offences. It will encourage compliance with the law, and so the law-abiding driver stands to gain a good deal from its successful implementation.
Clause 7 extends the fixed penalty system and owner liability to the new offence, under Clause 6 of the Bill, of stopping a vehicle at an urban junction. I shall have more to say about that in a few minutes. The clause also enables the fixed penalty system to be used in enforcing bus lane orders against drivers of offending vehicles. The effectiveness of bus lanes as a means of improving public transport services partly depends on effective enforcement, and the clause also extends the duty of an owner to give information about a driver's identity to breaches of experimental traffic orders, which are the means by which bus lanes are usually introduced.
Clause 22 provides a new power for the police and local authorities to retain in their custody vehicles which they have removed from the roads, until the statutory charges which are payable for the removal and storage of a vehicle have been paid. The police are empowered to make these charges for the removal of vehicles which are parked in contravention of the law. The charges are made to cover the cost of the operation, and are quite separate from any fixed penalty or fine which may be payable in addition because an offence has been committed. Many drivers, however, do not pay willingly, either when collecting their vehicles or later after further requests for payment have been made. The police have then to take legal proceedings to enforce payment, and this is a procedure which absorbs a great deal of time and money, both for the enforcement authorities and for the courts. The problem is greatest in London; the Metropolitan Police remove about 80,000 vehicles a year, but, despite all their efforts, there are about 11,000 cases in which the charges due are never collected. We estimate that having this power will save up to £50,000 a year in police administrative costs alone; it will considerably reduce the difficulties of collection; and, by taking away the opportunity for drivers to evade payment, it will restore a good deal of the value of

823
removal as a deterrent to unlawful parking.
Clause 6 is the first of the road safety provisions in the Bill. There is a very serious problem with accidents at junctions in urban areas, in which parked vehicles interfere with drivers' view of the road. In 1972 there were 6,000 casualties in urban areas to which vehicles parked at junctions were reported as contributory. These accidents were widely dispersed and not confined to any one class of road. We have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to introduce a general prohibition on stopping and waiting at urban junctions. The ban will be implemented following wide consultations to settle the actual details. I can, however, outline some of the main exceptions that will apply. The clause itself excludes from the ban the situations where a vehicle stops as a result of traffic, or to obey a traffic direction, or in an emergency. It makes provision for various exemptions, such as to provide places for loading and unloading in streets which have very closely spaced intersections, and for the police to give dispensations on particular occasions.
Clause 8 is more significant for the future than may appear at first sight. Its formal purport is to replace the power which local authorities now have to engage in, and spend money on, various road safety functions, with a statutory duty to attend to road safety. This proposal is made in the context of the reorganisation of local government which takes effect on April 1, 1974, when a number of functions will be taken over by the new counties. The new duty of local authorities includes not only the traditional educational and publicity activities of road safety officers but also the investigation of accidents, and the minor highway improvements which this investigation may show to be necessary. This clause thus points the way to a more important place for road safety in the operations of local government, and to its closer integration with the planning and improvement of highways. The Government believe that in the long run this will pay large dividends in safer roads.
Clause 9 will rectify deficiencies in powers to make regulations on vehicle lighting, and at the same time removes the anomaly that detailed provisions on
824
lighting equipment, alone of vehicle equipment, are in main legislation. Clause 10 and Schedule 2 enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to bring in a compulsory scheme of type approval for all vehicles. A type approval system is an important step forward in the application of standards relating to safety and pollution. Before a manufacturer brings a new model on to the market, he has to provide a sample for approval, and he must then supply, with each one that is sold, a certificate that it conforms in the relevant respects with the approved prototype. The testing will be supervised by the Department of the Environment, which proposes to charge fees to cover the cost of the scheme. Type approval will apply equally to imported vehicles. There are similar schemes in operation in other countries, and, where there is a bilateral agreement, type approval in one country is valid in another. A voluntary scheme is already in operation here, to provide our exporters with type approval to E.E.C. standards. The clause also contains powers to introduce type approval of component parts of vehicles.
Clause 11 removes defects in the present law on sale of second-hand vehicles. Clause 12 and Schedule 3 affect all holders of driving licences, both present and future. The present position as regards medical conditions which may affect fitness to drive is that they have to be declared on the application form when obtaining a driving licence for the first time, and on renewing it every three years. This system has two defects. First, there is no obligation on a licence-holder to tell the licensing authority if he develops a disability during the period of a licence. This means that he might have the misfortune to lose an arm or a leg one month after renewing his licence, but would be under no obligation to declare this for another two years and eleven months. Second, the Secretary of State, as licensing authority, does not have sufficient powers to inquire into the nature of any disability which may affect fitness to drive. The medical provisions of Schedule 3 close these gaps. We feel justified in seeking these powers in the interests of road safety. While the great majority of drivers modify their driving habits to take account of any disability, it is right to strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State to consider such cases.

825
The other proposal on driver licensing is to issue new and renewal licences which would normally remain current until the holder is 70, instead of for three years only, as the present law requires. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Monck for asking me to make clear what happens when one reaches the age of 70 and afterwards. I am delighted to tell him that thereafter renewal will be at three yearly intervals, as at present, and will be free. This proposal has been the subject of extensive consultations with many bodies interested in road safety, and the majority have supported this change.
There will be substantial savings, not only in form-filling for the public, but in paperwork within the central licensing system. We now have approaching 20 million licence-holders, which means nearly 7 million renewals each year, quite apart from the issue of provisional licences and new full licences. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea, which takes over renewal of licences this month, will probably be the largest computer organisation in Europe, and its planning offered a unique opportunity to re-examine the procedures. It emerged that if Parliament would dispense with the need for three-yearly renewals in the vast majority of cases, up to 350 staff and £1 million a year in staff costs and postage could be saved. There are of course provisions for some licence-holders to be treated differently. In particular, a licence could be limited to three years or less on medical advice, so that the driver's medical condition could be reviewed at appropriate intervals.
I think your Lordships will welcome Clause 13. Overloading of goods vehicles is not only dangerous; it causes considerable damage to roads. A great deal of work has been done to develop methods of checking the weight of lorries so as to enforce the limits imposed by the regulations. As this proceeded, it became evident that the Secretary of State would need power to specify the methods of weighing and the tolerances appropriate for this purpose—which may be quite different from those relating to the traditional use of weigh-bridges for verifying quantities of goods. This clause will permit the introduction of transportable weighing devices, which
826
record the weight of each axle as the vehicle is driven over them. It will thus strengthen enforcement of legal weight limits and make it easier to prosecute offenders.
Clauses 14 and 15 contain provisions which would allow the Secretary of State to introduce schemes for licensing people under 21 to drive heavy vehicles, within the framework of a professional training scheme. The scheme which is immediately in prospect is to train young drivers of heavy goods vehicles, and the power to reduce the minimum age for their vocational licences is in Clause 14. Clause 15 would enable the Secretary of State to make similar provision for a reduction in the minimum age for driving buses. If such a scheme were introduced, it might be on somewhat different lines—for instance it might have to have regard to E.E.C. requirements—but it would equally contain safeguards against the risks of licensing inexperienced drivers to use large and heavy vehicles.
Quite apart from fears of a growing shortage of heavy goods drivers, a properly drawn up and controlled training scheme is increasingly necessary for a healthy road transport industry, and will lead to a general improvement in standards. The scheme would provide for a course under qualified instructors, with trainees graduating from smaller to larger lorries—subject to passing the very exacting heavy goods vehicle driving test. This scheme has been discussed at length with both sides of the industry, and both are in favour of it. It is in line with the relevant E.E.C. regulation, and there is every reason to think that the details can be agreed with the Commission.
Clauses 16 to 19 of the Bill propose to amend the existing law in a way which will create a more flexible system of bus licensing adapted to present-day circumstances—and designed, in particular, to help rural communities with their transport problems. The Bill makes it possible for lifts to be given in cars, against payment, without any risk of falling foul of bus licensing requirements. Minibuses, with up to 12 seats, which are privately used, will also be freed from these requirements. Minisbuses operating commercially will still be subject to public service vehicle licensing—concerned with the fitness of both vehicle and operator to provide a service carrying passengers for hire

827
or reward. But they will be exempt from the need to have a road service licence where they neither carry passengers on journeys in an urban area, nor run on an existing bus route in competition with a conventional service. This change will open the way for more informal services, by minibuses in country areas which are without conventional bus services or are inadequately served by them. The Bill also widens the scope for granting permits for other kinds of journey by minibus. And the criteria for granting road service licences themselves are also made more flexible, greater emphasis being placed on the interests of the public than under present legislation.
Clause 20 and Schedule 4 to the Bill contain powers on licensing of goods vehicle operators. The first few years' operation of Part V of the Transport Act 1968 has shown up some minor weaknesses in the system and in the powers conferred on licensing authorities. It is these weaknesses which the Government are proposing to remedy in this clause and Schedule, by relatively minor amendments to current law which will be welcomed by all responsible elements in the industry itself.
Clause 21, which refers to recording equipment, is in fact concerned with the tachograph, which provides an automatic record of journeys by heavy goods vehicles in place of manual record-keeping. Tachographs are not yet widely used here, but they become compulsory under E.E.C. regulations, in 1976 for new vehicles and in 1978 for existing ones. What the Government propose is to introduce a voluntary scheme in 1974. This has two advantages: those who fit the current models of tachograph before 1976 will gain useful experience in their use; and they will be able to defer until 1980 the fitting of a more complicated and expensive type specified by the E.E.C. This clause permits the substitution of these automatic records for the records which drivers have to fill up and provides for inspection and testing of the equipment. The type approval of tachographs is covered by the provisions of Clause 10 on component parts of vehicles.
Clause 23 requires that motor insurers who write compulsory third-party policies in the United Kingdom should be members of the Motor Insurers' Bureau. The
828
functions of the Bureau are, first, meeting claims in respect of compulsorily insurable liabilities against uninsured drivers, and making payments to victims of untraced or unidentified drivers; and, second, operating the international green card system. Most insurers already belong, and it seems wrong that these important functions should rely on voluntary membership.
In Clause 24 and Schedule 5 we are taking the opportunity to revise and rationalise the maximum penalties for a wide range of road traffic offences. This revision, which chiefly affects the penalties that may be imposed in the magistrates' courts, has two main aspects. First, the Bill increases the maximum fines which may be imposed on summary conviction for a large number of offences. Second, it removes from the magistrates' courts the power to send offenders to prison for road traffic offences, with the single exception of driving while disqualified. This clause and Schedule are very important, but I have spoken at some length and I think that I shall do better to leave this subject to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, when he comes to wind up the debate at the end: he can deal with it in greater detail than I can as he knows far more about it. Clause 25 is consequential upon the changes in fines, and maintains the present position as regards the jurisdiction of courts in Scotland. Clauses 26 and 27 contain provisions on interpretation, commencement, and other technical matters.
This short Bill contains a formidable amount of important legislation. That is not to say that it covers everything that noble Lords might have hoped to see: rather it contains those matters to which the Government, after clue consideration, attached the highest priority. My colleagues and I will listen with attention to the views that are expressed this afternoon, both on the contents of the Bill and on other related matters which it does not touch. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Aberdare.)
7.6 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the way in which he has introduced this Bill. He has covered a number of points. I must admit that he

829
did it at such a rate that it made it difficult for me, with my limited intellect, to follow him completely. Nevertheless, he has gone through it all; it is on the Record, and I shall be able to read it.
He referred to the fact that this is my second appearance at this Box to-day. To listen to me once is more than enough; to have to listen to me twice is imposing a heavy punishment on the House. However, I shall try to be reasonably brief. This is very much a hotch-potch of a Bill which seems to have in it so many things that were inadvertently left out of previous Bills. It also has some things in it which have been brought to light by the inability of the authorities to enforce some of the previous legislation—though it is none the worse for that. There are some things that are new and that, although perhaps not revolutionary, will nevertheless require careful examination.
Clauses 1 to 5 appear to me to be unexceptionable in so far as they give effect to something we pressed for in our debate on London traffic control on February 17 last. That debate followed the publication of the second Report of the Expenditure Committee of another place on Urban Transport Planning, the Hall Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, told the House the figures of the failures to secure payment of the fixed penalty payment. I will not repeat them, but those figures are indeed startling, and it is time something was done about the matter. The case for keeper liability—the technical term—was certainly made out before the Hall Committee. I accept completely the necessity for the purpose behind these clauses, but I wonder whether there is any real need for owners to be relieved of any liability if they are able to furnish the chief officer of the police with the statutory statement of facts as mentioned in the clause, or whether we ought not to expect the owner of the vehicle himself to collect from the driver the amount of the fixed penalty and pay the penalty himself. After all, in the vast majority of cases the driver must have been using the car with the owner's permission. The procedure embodied in these clauses will undoubtedly result in a considerable increase in the amount of paper work falling on the police. That is to be deplored, but I suppose that all this is a part of our tenderness towards offenders
830
against the law and of our falling over backwards to be scrupulously fair, and more than fair.
Clause 6 seems to me to be a reasonable power to vest in the Secretary of State, but of course we shall have to consider the regulations that flow from the clause. Clause 7 seems to me to be to some extent machinery. The noble Lord has told us that the fixed penalty procedure will be applied to bus lane orders. This is, I suppose, a step in the right direction, but Mr. Hunt, in his evidence to the Expenditure Committee, stressed the difficulty of the enforcement of the law on bus lanes, and suggested that powers should be given to the police to employ traffic wardens on bus lane enforcement. The question I have to ask is: has anything been done about that suggestion; and, if not, might this Bill he a suitable vehicle for bringing it into effect?
My Lords, the first part of Clause 8 adds a little to Section 38 of the Act of 1972, making it mandatory on local authorities to prepare and carry out measures designed to promote road safety. But under the remainder of what is to be added to the 1972 Act there is to be a considerable extension of the duties of local authorities, and one wonders what is intended here. Is it the case that in future we shall see two bodies, the police and the local authorities, carrying out an identical investigation into the same accident? This would seem to me to be implied by what is contained in this clause.
There is just one other point in this connection that I feel I ought to mention. It was brought to my attention by a local authority association. County councils are now the authority for road safety. District councils used to be, and there was considerable justification for the fact that these powers rested with districts. I am not asking that we should do anything to upset the Local Government Act 1972, but I would urge upon the Government that if a district asks for agency powers under the Local Government Act and such a request comes to the Government as an appeal by the district council against the decision of the county council, then they will give some sympathetic consideration to that application. I ask no more than that, but it is a point that has been brought to me by a local authority association.

831
For the sake of safety on the road and of road users, Clause 10 provides a suitable extension of the system of official approval of vehicles and their component parts; and it applies to all vehicles and is not, as hitherto, confined to goods vehicles. This is a considerable step in the right direction, and the mark of approval which I take it will be applied to these vehicles, and to the component parts mentioned, will I think ensure that we shall have higher standards of safety in our vehicles. Clause 11 seems to me to be a well worth while extension of the prohibition on dealing in unroadworthy vehicles, and it appears to me to be the blocking up of a discovered loophole. I can well imagine that plenty of this has in fact occurred, and that it was a loophole.
I am fairly sure that Clause 12 will receive a fairly wide welcome, but I am far from clear as to how the new law will apply to applicants over 70–or at least I was until the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made his speech and told us of his exchange with the noble Viscount, Lord Monck. As I understand it, the noble Lord has covered the point of my difficulty. He has given me the additional information that my future driving licences will be issued for three years because I have passed life's allotted span; and he has also given me some information that I had not seen anywhere else—and I hope he meant it; that is, that in future I shall not only get my driving licences for three years but get them free. This I understood the noble Lord to say, and for that I am truly grateful.
Clause 13, the clause which deals with the weighing of vehicles, may be an important one from the point of view of the owner and the driver. Clearly, what will be important in this connection will be what is in the regulations. I know that the Transport and General Workers' Union have expressed concern over the number of commercial vehicle drivers who have been prosecuted under the existing regulations dealing with gross axle weights. It appears to me that it is possible for a driver to distribute his load over the entire vehicle in order to be within his gross maximum weight but that the situation may arise where one axle may still be over the prescribed limit and the driver has no means of checking it.
832
The solution proposed by the union is that vehicle owners should be compelled to fix axle weight mechanisms which would enable the driver to check and, if necessary, adjust the load in order to conform to the regulations. My Lords, I feel that we may have to return to this matter when we go into Committee on the Bill, but perhaps the noble Viscount may be able to tell us a little more about it when he comes to reply to this debate to-night.
The proposals in Clauses 14 and 15 to lower the age for the grant of a driving licence for heavy vehicles to 18 is one which, understandably, has caused some disquiet. I am bound to say that I am not too sure what is intended here, despite the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Does it amount to this: that a young person aged, say, 19 who has attended a course under the Road Transport Industry Board and who passes the necessary test will be able, even though he has not attained the age of 21, to secure a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle or a public service vehicle? Will this in fact work in this way or is it merely intended under the regulations to be made under these clauses that a young person will be able to drive on the road only as a part of his instruction under the supervision of a suitable instructor, this in readiness for driving heavy vehicles on attaining the age of 21?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I just reassure the noble Lord? It is a graduated process between 18 and 21, with a full training programme. If a person passes the requisite tests he will be able to drive lorries of gradually heavier sorts until he is 21, when he can drive the really large lorries.
LORD CHAMPION: So it will be a graduation throughout the whole of the period, and he will go upwards from class to class?
LORD ABERDARE: That is right.
LORD CHAMPION: And he will not be able to drive the heaviest of vehicles until he attains the age of 21. Is that it?
LORD ABERDARE: On his own, yes.
LORD CHAMPION: That clears up the doubts that I had about this matter. I ought to say here that the Transport and General Workers' Union, having

833
looked at the first clause and the second one relating to bus drivers, say,
"We accept this clause, in that this facilitates the operation of the agreed driver-apprentice scheme".
So obviously there have been consultations which have brought about this agreement.
My Lords, the final clauses to which I wish to refer, at a little length, are Nos. 16 to 20, and to these we shall have to devote a lot of time in Committee. I am of the opinion that the public service vehicle licensing system has served the country and the industry fairly well, and that we ought to approach changes to that system very cautiously indeed. There are a number of things upon which the Opposition will have to be satisfied before we shall be prepared to part with this clause. These can be summarised briefly as: arrangements for passenger safety and protection, and adequacy of insurance cover for passengers in private cars; that the effect of any changes will not be such as seriously to injure existing operators who are providing regular services; that the employment standards are not worsened by these clauses and what will flow from them; and that the competition of mini-buses will not be permitted in areas where they are not needed, such as in competing with established services in densely-populated areas. I might also mention that the appropriate trade union is disturbed about Clause 21. It fears that the recording equipment will give a very inadequate indication of the driver's work. To that aspect we shall return. I will not mention the remaining clauses of the Bill. Clearly, we shall have to devote some time to them in Committee. I have been saying that we are not opposed to this Bill; indeed we welcome it, but we shall try very hard to improve it when we get into Committee.
7.21 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, as the noble Lord who opened this debate made clear to us and as is apparent from a glance at the Bill, it will be seen that it has no general theme. It is a collection of measures, matters no less important on that account; but there is a danger in a Second Reading debate that one may be accused of making points which are substantially Committee points. I shall not attempt to review the whole of this Bill
834
this evening. What I should like to do, and I hope it will be helpful to do so, is to draw attention to three aspects of the Bill to which my attention has been drawn. These may be matters which we shall want to take up in Committee and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, may think it useful if I mention them, if I put up a marker against them, so that he will have an indication of what, at any rate, I may wish to bring up on Committee.
May I say a few words about Clauses 1 to 5? Those are the clauses which introduce this new system by which fixed penalty offences can be made the responsibility of the owner as opposed to the driver. I am sorry that these provisions—and I have no doubt that it was difficult to work them out—do not appear to catch either the person who to-day has diplomatic immunity (and we know of the large number of offences committed by people in that position) or the owner or the driver who is a visitor from abroad. I think that it is a pity that the Government—it may have been impossible to manage it—have not been able to devise some scheme to catch those two categories of people.
May I ask a question on Clause 1(2)? That is the provision whereby, in certain cases, a chief officer of police can serve a notice on a person whom he has reason to believe is the owner of a vehicle requiring him to do certain things. The question is this. Is there any time limit during which the police have to serve that notice? They cannot serve it until the 21 days on the original notice have expired, but there appears to be nothing in the Bill to indicate any time limit on the serving of a notice on a presumed owner. Secondly, from what time does the time limit for prosecution begin to run? I take it that the time limit will be the ordinary time limit of six months. Can the noble Viscount tell us from what date it is intended that the time limit of prosecution shall begin to run? Is it from the date of the original alleged offence or from the date of the issuing of a notice to a presumed owner or from the date when the presumed owner fails to comply (if he does so fail) with the notice? There appears to be nothing about this in the Bill at present. It would appear possible to issue that notice at any time; indeed, it might be years after the event.

835
Continuing with Clause 1, I have some doubts about the remainder of this clause. As I understand it, in the case of certain fixed-penalty offences, where a notice which has been given to the person or attached to the vehicle has not been complied with (and nobody has paid the penalty) the police can serve the notice on the person they think is the owner. Under that notice he has a choice either of paying a fixed penalty or of furnishing this statutory statement as to whether or not he is the owner. If he is not the owner he is required to state who is the owner. What happens if he fails to comply with that requirement? As I understand it—and the noble Viscount will I hope correct me if I am wrong—if he does nothing at all about it he can be prosecuted for having failed to comply with the notice and is liable to a penalty of £100. Alternatively, as I understand it, if he does nothing about it and makes no return then, if proceedings are successfully brought against him for the alleged offence, it is then to be conclusively presumed in those proceedings that he is the driver.
Under one of the clauses of the Bill it is made clear that the notice can be served on the presumed owner either by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post to him; and he is then required to comply with that notice within the specified period of 21 days. Let us suppose that he is on holiday or is away from home or does not receive the notice. Then under subsection (4) if he is prosecuted simply for failing to comply with the notice, he is entitled to be acquitted if he can offer a reasonable excuse for not having complied. If, on the other hand, the police decide to prosecute him for the original offence, as if lie were the driver, he is not entitled (as I understand it) to say, "Oh, no. I was not the driver." He is not entitled to plead that he was away at the time and did not receive the notice; because it has to be conclusively presumed, because lie has not complied with the notice, that he is the driver. Therefore he cannot come to court and say, "I did not receive the notice." He is not entitled to do that if the police decide to prosecute him for the original offence (whatever it may have been) rather than to prosecute him for failing to comply with the notice.
836
The other point on Clause 1 is this. It appears to me as I read subsection (8)(b), that if a presumed owner is served with one of these notices and writes in to the police saying, "I am the owner of this vehicle but I was not the driver on this occasion; it was driven by Mr. 'A'", he is therefore complying with the notice and, as I understand it, what follows depends upon whether or not the police decide to prosecute the driver or the person whom the owner says was the driver. If they decide for any reason not to prosecute the driver, or if they prosecute him and do so unsuccessfully, the police can turn back to the original owner and say, "We are going to prosecute you as if you were the driver." That is my reading of the effect of subsection (8)(b). If I am wrong about that perhaps the noble Lord can put me right. But it seems to me very unsatisfactory if in fact that is the way it works out.
I should like to say a word about Clause 24. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he would leave it to his colleague to deal with this matter, which is very important. It is the proposed variation of penalties for road traffic offences. As I understand it, and reading the clause with Schedule 5, it steps up the financial penalties for almost every kind of road traffic offence. The second thing is that with one exception, driving while disqualified, it would in future prevent magistrates dealing with a summary case from sending anyone to prison for one of these road traffic offences. I am the last person not to welcome a provision which might result in sending fewer people to prison. I entirely support the theme that for road traffic offences prison is almost invariably a wholly inappropriate penalty. Nevertheless, I suggest that there is a curious illogicality about what is proposed because many of these so-called traffic offences are not road traffic offences at all. Under the law as it stands, if a person makes a false statement to get a licence or insurance he can be sent to prison by the magistrates. Now that is to be abolished. Even in the case of the forgery of a document for the purpose of obtaining a licence or an insurance policy the magistrates will have no power to send an offender to prison.

837
These offences cannot be regarded as road traffic offences; they are peripherally road traffic offences only because they happen to be tied up with road traffic. Surely the offence of forgery or making a false statement could be very injurious to the public. A person who is a danger to the public when driving a vehicle may make a false statement and be able to get a licence. If that kind of thing happens is it right that we should treat the case differently from the ordinary kind of dishonesty, or fraud or forgery, and have different penalties for it? I imagine the reason why the Government have taken this line is that they are anxious to reduce the number of cases reaching the Crown Courts. It is only when the magistrates have the power to impose a term of imprisonment of more than three months that the accused person has the right to elect to be tried by a jury. If you take from the magistrates the power to send people to prison at all, an accused person will not have the right of election. He will have to be tried by the magistrates. I imagine that is what the Government have in mind. But it has been put to me, and I think there is some force in the argument, that it may work in the opposite way and result in more cases going to the Crown Courts.
I say that for this reason. I am sorry if I have to talk "legal lingo", but the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will understand me when I talk about a hybrid offence. That is the type of offence which may be dealt with on indictment or summarily. What happens is that if it is dealt with summarily before the magistrates there has to be a representation by the prosecutor at the beginning of the case that he thinks it a suitable case to be dealt with summarily. Then the magistrates have to decide whether they think it is a suitable case. Even though the prosecutor may think it a suitable case the magistrates may say that they think it is too serious for them to deal with and that it ought to be sent to a Crown Court. What may happen in the future is that if the magistrates are presented with a case which they regard as serious, and which might warrant imprisonment, and they know in advance that they have not the power to imprison, they may be more inclined to say, "We are going to send this case to the higher court. We do not think that the powers
838
left to us for punishment are sufficient to meet the case". Therefore that may result in more cases being sent to the Crown Courts than are being sent at present.
My Lords, I am sorry to have spoken for so long. My last point, which I will make very briefly, relates to Clause 12 and to Schedule 3. It relates to the changes being made in the information to be given about one's physical condition when applying for a licence. The law at present is that when you apply for a driving licence you have to answer a question whether you are suffering or have suffered from any kind of disability which might render you unable properly to manage a motor vehicle. What is now proposed is that something should be added to that. To find this you have to look at Schedule 3. What is now proposed is that a person applying for a licence should be asked an additional question, whether he suffers from any disability which is not of such a kind that it is a relevant disability—that is, a disability which we talk about now—but one
"which, by virtue of the intermittent or progressive nature of the disability or otherwise, may become a relevant disability in course of time (such disability being hereafter in this section referred to as a prospective disability')."
I ask, my Lords, whether it is possible for any responsible person or indeed any irresponsible person, to answer that question. He would have to consult the Delphic Oracle, or possibly an astrologer, in order to discover whether he was suffering from something which might in the course of time render him incapable or disable him, but which does not disable him now. I suggest that to throw that obligation on an individual is too much; and something almost not to be contemplated is that a person should be prosecuted for making a false reply to a hypothetical question of that sort. Those are the three matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister, and to which, as I say, we may return on Committee.
7.39 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, before I say a few words, I wonder whether may apologise to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, as I am afraid that I have an important engagement and cannot be present at the

839
end of the debate. The Bill before us is one which, though not vitally important important to the users of road traffic in this country, has nevertheless within its pages some recommendations which will, I suspect, generally commend themselves to your Lordships' House. There are others which are likely to cause criticism if not argument. One point has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I think this is really a Committee question, but perhaps it might be thought about before the Committee stage is reached. What will happen to an offender, or a receiver of a parking ticket, if the vehicle concerned has been hired? I think we have been told that the owner might be responsible, but if the car is hired it might be a difficult problem.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, may I clear up that point. Clause 3 of the Bill deals in great detail and with agreement among the car hire people, with exactly that point. I recommend my noble friend to look at that clause. I think it cures the problem.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I am sorry; I must apologise to my noble friend. I must have missed that particular clause. The provision, however, which in my view is likely to be of most help to the general public, and which I am sure will be widely welcomed, is that which will allow, in future, local buses to be provided for local people by local people. Driving, as I frequently do, to Worcestershire and passing through some of the glorious Cotswold villages, I am occasionally tempted to think of retiring in my old age to one of the delightful cottages in that part of the country. On inquiring from friends in the neighbourhood about amenities and living conditions, the immediate reply is that it is hopeless without a car. I am lucky. I like driving, and hope to be able to drive for many more years. But I wonder about and inquire about, those who live in the depths of the country and have no car. I am informed that "the buses do not run now; they do not pay." One can appreciate that that is likely to be the case. But what of the people, young, middle-aged and elderly alike who have no transport? I am told that "the shop comes around"—very helpful, but, there is no freedom of choice for the
840
customer—a library occasionally, probably once a month: and even getting to church is a real problem.
In these lonely country areas this provision in the Bill will be more widely welcomed than perhaps some of us realise. It will also provide the opportunity for a much needed service to the community. May I add that I hope women will be able to drive these conveyances. As one who drove Green Line buses during the war in London, I can assure you that women are just as capable as men.
My Lords, there is only one part of the Bill on which I, as a two-day-a-week magistrate, feel that I must criticise the Government. This is the proposal for deleting the powers of the magistrates' courts to imprison an offender for any road traffic offence except that of driving while disqualified. I realise that every-one—and that includes the magistrates— wants to reduce the prison population. But in my view certain offenders, in exceptionally bad cases, warrant imprisonment. I firmly believe that the threat of imprisonment has a deterring effect. In the cases of driving with excess alcohol or dangerous driving, where disqualification is mandatory, the possibility of imprisonment should, in my view, also be a possible punishment. I rarely agreed with a suspended sentence—too many people got away with it if they were careful—but I believe that a prison sentence for three months, suspended for two or three years would be a better deterrent and warning to others than any enlarged financial penalty.
The number of offenders found guilty of dangerous or reckless driving last year was 6,241, of whom only 36 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment.
The number of those found guilty of driving while unfit through drink or drugs was 43,836, but only 307 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment. These figures, I think, prove that magistrates, in their courts, are very loath to imprison an offender; but also I hope they prove that these are exceptional circumstances where the bench feel that they have no alternative. It may be of interest, my Lords, to know that on my information, in Holland 30 days is mandatory for drunken driving; and in America drivers are also imprisoned for one month. Most of your Lordships'

841
will know that imprisonment for driving while drunk was also mandatory in this country until a few years ago. To take away these powers from the courts at this time would, in my view, be seen by this country to be a weak decision.
There are only two small items that I should like to touch on, and that is finally to ask the Minister to try to see that the new method of issuing driving licences is speeded up. One defendant in my court has had his case remanded three times, on each occasion hoping that his licence will have been sent to him when he appears. The second point is that if licences are to be granted from the age of 17 to 70, I hope that they will come in the form of hardbacks, not paperbacks. My hardback licence lasted from 1935 to 1971, when it was replaced by a cardboard covered one. I am glad to say that both are otherwise still clean.
7.47 p.m.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the new improvements in law set out in this Bill. But I have two regrets: First, I regret the complexity of the provisions of this Bill; and, secondly, I regret that this is yet another Bill to be brought into force by Statutory Instrument. If I may pause over those two regrets, I turn first to the complexity of the provisions. It may be that the Minister will take the point that the motorcar is a complicated machine. If lie should do so, having myself had mysterious mechanical trouble while on holiday with my family in Wales, I would be inclined to agree. But jesting apart, the complexity of the motor car is not an answer here. Indeed, I believe this Bill exposes a wider problem. I believe complex legislation in minutia is the prevalent defect of current statutory law. I believe both Houses pass detailed provisions without sufficient thought of their implementation by the courts, high or low, the police, or officials, be they Government or county. In the end I believe that Parliament defeats its own purpose if it passes statutory law which by its complexity prevents those who have to implement it doing so with expedition and exactitude.
My Lords, at this stage I was intending to proceed to some examples in this Bill of complexity, but I find myself in basic
842
difficulty: that despite the erudite opening by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and careful analysis in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I find much of this Bill incomprehensible in its drafting. That is not to criticise the Parliamentary draughtsmen, but to criticise the instructions they received.
I turn now to my second regret. This again is a Bill which is to be brought into force by Statutory Instrument. I have debated this point once before with the Minister during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Perhaps it suffices to say that I note that this Bill still has that disease—I think it is the "epidemic disease" of recent statute law—of having no date of enactment, but having the enactments or provisions brought in by Statutory Instruments and with all the difficulties that this entails. This fact I set out in an earlier speech during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill.
My Lords, the greatest regret that I have about this Bill concerns an absentee. The absentee is this. The Government have failed to include in this Bill fresh provisions to replace the breathalyser law which was originally set out in the Road Safety Act 1967 and now forms part of the consolidated enactment, the Road Traffic Act 1972, Sections 6 to 13. Your Lordships will be familiar with the breathalyser law: indeed, many of your Lordships will have been in the House when the original Bill went through. I recognise that there is a question of priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his opening speech said that the Government had given due consideration to priorities, and they felt that the provisions set out in this Bill covered those matters of greatest priority.
I also recognise that this Bill deals with other aspects of road traffic. None the less, in my submission, this Bill remains a convenient vehicle. Moreover, the breathalyser law is a matter of priority. Why do I say this? Although the Road Safety Bill was clothed in good intentions, it has, I believe, proved (to all of those who are concerned with efficiency and expedition of the process of law) to be the worst piece of legislation for a decade. Instead of clearing up old ambiguities and difficulties under the old law concerning being unfit to drive, with nystagmus having to be proved, and the difficulty, too, of obtaining proper

843
convictions before juries, this Bill will create more complex difficulties.
I emphasise that I speak as a practising lawyer, and I am not riding any political horse. My criticism is exclusively a professional criticism, but I hope it will be one that has some sting. Contrary to some popular belief, lawyers, certainly in my experience, do not enjoy presenting unmeritorious cases. Sir Robert Mark was kind enough to recognise this in his brilliant Dimbleby Lecture of a few days ago. Yet time and time again under these breathalyser provisions we are being required to put forward unmeritorious defences. I think I can do no better than to quote from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a recent case that came before the Judicial Committee of this House, when he said this in a breathalyser case:
"Like many appeals under the Road Safety Act 1967, this appeal is wholly without merits and, like many other appeals wholly without merits, it has been conducted almost entirely at the public expense, since the appellant is legally aided".
That is a view that was repeated by Lord Justice Roskill in another case that came more recently before the High Court.
My Lords, the statistics speak for themselves. Since 1967, in the All England Reports concerning the breathalyser law, altogether 17 cases are reported to have come to the Queen's Bench Division, 21 to the Court of Appeal and five to your Lordships' Judicial Committee. These, I emphasise, are the reported cases. Beyond the reported cases there are many others that have also come before those courts. The Road Traffic Reports, another set of law reports, records altogether a total of some 50 breathalyser cases that have come before the courts.
What about the courts of first instance? What about the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts? Here the statistics were more difficult to acquire. I made various inquiries to-day from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office, but there were no separate statistics concerning the breathalyser law, as opposed to the old unfit to drive law, which is still part of the law and is set out in Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. However, I made inquiries at the Bedford Crown
844
Court on Monday of this week, and there I was told that this year there have been 31 breathalyser cases out of 300 cases which that court has dealt with. This is not approaching the point with exactitude, but I was told by the Lord Chancellor's Office that altogether in 1972 there have been 37,324 cases of trials before the Crown Courts. If one were to transpose that 10 per cent., 31 of 300, to 1972, one reaches the startling figure of 3,700 cases. That may well be on the high side; the Bedford Crown Court is a court on a lower tier and it may be that that court has a higher number of breathalyser cases. However, it indicates the number of cases that are heard in the courts of first instance, and accords with the impression of lawyers who practise both in the magistrates' court and in the Crown Court.
My Lords, what is the conclusion to be drawn from this? I suggest it is this. The provisions which should have been cut and dried, and which should have led to the minimum of appeals, have taken an excessive time of the courts and brought upon the Treasury excessive costs. Some of your Lordships may be asking: why such an abundance of judicial authority? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice put the matter in rather vivid terms in a recent case in 1972, when referring to the abundance of cases coming out of the "apparently inexhaustible well of the Road Safety Act".
I believe that there is both a general reason and a particular reason. The general reason covers my earlier complaint, that Parliament has legislated in particularity, setting out detailed provisions which must be followed to the letter and, if not, there is a break in the chain of procedures, and proceedings are brought to a nullity. Two breath tests with particular equipment, special and limited forms of arrest, further specific requirements in the police station including how the sample should be handed out—it is small wonder that in earlier days, when the provisions of the Road Safety Act first became law, all the earlier appeals arose out of baffled police officers failing to master the complexities of procedure.
Then there is the particular reason. Parliament attempted to prevent random tests by restricting the circumstances in

845
which tests could be administered, and in doing so made the provisions more complex and less enforceable. Concerning accidents, the provisions here were moderately sensible and caused no serious difficulty. The other circumstances in which a motorist can be stopped and breathalysed are limited to cases where the officer has seen a motorist driving or attempting to drive, and during the course of that driving or attempting to drive, he has either formed grounds to suspect that there was too much alcohol in the motorist's blood or has noted that the driver has committed a traffic offence. Parliament did not give a very good start to the courts, because by literally reading those provisions one finds the awkward situation where the police officer in uniform has to administer the breathalyser test at the same time as the driver is driving or attempting to drive.
What does it all come to? The car need not be in motion. It can be stopped at traffic lights, or the driver can be adjusting the windscreen wipers. If stopped for reasons unconnected with driving, the motorist escapes the provisions of the breathalyser law. For instance, if a motorists stops to make a telephone call or to have a discussion about politics outside a railway station, then he will escape the provisions of the breathalyser law.
There have been surprising consequences. I will mention two cases very briefly, because I recognise that I am referring your Lordships to an absentee from the Bill rather than to what is actually contained in it. I would refer to the case of Edkins v. Knowles, which was the case in which two plain clothes police officers in a police car saw a motorist driving a car very fast and erratically. They followed him for three miles to a holiday camp where he lived and, while doing so, sent out a radio call requesting the attendance of a traffic patrol car. They did not attempt to overtake the motorist as they thought it would be dangerous to do so. When the defendant had finally stopped at the holiday camp, they drew up beside him, identified themselves and asked him to wait until the patrol car arrived. He did so, remaining in the driving seat of the car. A few minutes later a traffic patrol car arrived, with uniformed police officers. Because the first officers were in plain clothes and not in uniform, and
846
because they had stopped that motorist from effectively driving or attempting to drive, then when the uniformed police officers came to carry out the breath test, they were no longer dealing with a motorist who was driving or attempting to drive: hence, all the proceedings were a nullity.
I would refer to another case concerning a private citizen, who noticed that another motorist had had too much to drink and that his driving was affected by it. With some courage, the first man held the driver at some traffic lights and waited for uniformed police officers to arive. When some uniformed officers did arrive fifteen minutes later, it was all a nullity because by that stage the driver was no longer driving or attempting to drive. The irony of it all is that the random tests which Parliament was attempting to prevent being carried out, can be carried out—and this is so because of an extension of the meaning of "driving or attempting to drive". So that if a motorist has been stopped and thereafter a police officer observes the smell of alcohol on the man's breath, it is perfectly permissible for the officer, from that point onwards, to administer a breath test. That, I would submit to your Lordships, is a form of random test.
The other difficulties are legion. I have spoken for fifteen minutes, and perhaps your Lordships would accept from me that, for example, the drinking of alcohol between the ceasing of the driving and the taking of the breath test will reduce the proceedings to a nullity. I hope that your Lordships will also accept from me—I have authorities, though I will not put them before you at this stage—that if you punch a police officer on the nose and, not surprisingly, he arrests you for doing so, any subsequent tests which are carried out are a nullity. I could quote from a case within my own experience which would support that statement.
There is a great deal more that I could say to your Lordships. I received good advice from the Minister before coming into the Chamber—advice which I am afraid I have not wholly followed. I would merely express the hope to your Lordships that I have sufficiently illustrated the need for this piece of legislation to receive immediate attention from the Government in this Bill. I realise

847
that it could be made the subject of a Private Member's Bill and that I could move Amendments during Committee stage. I have not been for a very long time in your Lordships' House, but I have been here sufficiently long to recognise that unless the Government take the lead in this type of legislation, these reforms cannot be achieved. It is this lead I ask of the Government.
8.5 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble kinsman. I was interested to hear of the cases he referred to in regard to breathalyser tests, and I shall be most interested to sec what will happen if he moves Amendments at Committee stage or otherwise tries to alter the law in order to make the existing breathalyser test more strictly enforceable. I would go all the way with him about the random tests to which he refers. However, we can wait for these things, perhaps, until another day.
I welcome this Bill, as will anybody who is interested in road safety matters—and I am sure that includes all Members of your Lordships' House. Many measures relating to road safety over the last few years have originated in this House. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the way they dealt with the opening stages of this debate. They cleared up a number of difficult points which had occurred to me earlier, and for this reason I can now shorten my speech somewhat. Like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I look forward to the Committee stage. It is quite obvious from this debate that much water will have to flow under the bridge before this Bill really takes shape—and, in passing, I see that I made a note to the effect that Clause 3 was likely to present some difficulty. Therefore I was very pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said—followed in this respect by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve—that the rather complex terms of this clause have been discussed with the interested parties and accepted by them. This is a very satisfactory outcome.
Turning to Clause 6, covering the stopping of vehicles at road junctions, I would say that this is very welcome. I read it coupled with Clause 8, which
848
refers to the obligations of local authorities. I will not mention the obligations to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, quite properly referred, appertaining to local authorities under the new Local Government Act. However, one point occurred to me at the beginning of this week on my way here, and that is that local authorities should be placed under an obligation to see that if their own vehicles, particularly machines such as compressors and the like, must he stationed at a road junction, then one member of the crew, or perhaps a detached traffic warden, should be asked to help traffic, particularly at peak times, in situations where a corner is concealed by the machinery.
As to the duties of local authorities, I should like to repeat an appeal which has been made in your Lordships' House may times over the years, within my recollection. It is that street names should be easily legible and fixed where they can be seen by drivers. Many street names are fixed at a height more suitable for the days when a driver was probably driving a hansom cab. It is safe to say that many motorists in strange towns and cities to-day have the greatest difficulty in finding where they are. I world go further and say that we should include in the obligations of local authorities some provision regarding the numbering of premises. Many premises nowadays are not even numbered at all. It is very difficult for a driver or a tradesman to find exactly the building he is looking for if the number is not visible from the driving seat of a vehicle.
I should now like to go to Clause 8, which deals with the duty of local authorities to promote road safety and I should like to refer to two particular points. I welcome the added road safety duties given to the local authorities under this clause. Hitherto, the term "road safety" in local authority terms has meant the giving of information and safety education. No one will dispute the necessity for this work; but it is also essential that the authorities should have a continuing duty to look at accident spots from a traffic engineering point of view, and take steps to eliminate dangers which become obvious. The better authorities already do this; but with many it is simply no-one's job in the highway departments to

849
deal with accident spots and difficulties as such.
Some authorities—I believe last week the London borough of Wandsworth did this—have taken steps to appoint a traffic engineer with responsibility for accident investigations. I hope that the Minister will make clear that to carry out their function properly under this clause each authority should, so far as they are able, appoint a specialist officer. The next point under this clause to which I should like to refer is pavement parking. This is one important omission from the Bill and might be considered by my noble friend before another stage is reached. This is regarding a reference to a prohibition on pavement parking. I am a vice-president of the Pedestrians Association and am advised by that organisation that the Association receives more complaints about this nuisance than any other subject. The car parked on the pavement is not only inconvenient to pedestrians, but can be positively dangerous for mothers with prams who are sometimes forced on to the carriage-way in order to get round the car. It is a nuisance which should be made the subject of a clear statutory prohibition.
The present law is still contained in the Highway Act of 1835 which makes it an offence (and I quote):
"To wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine or cattle, or carriage of any description, on to a footway".
It is possible that these words include a motor vehicle, but there is a difficulty in that the law does not assume a car parked on the pavement as being led or driven there. In any case, it is absurd that an Act of 1835 should be the governing Statute on what happens on our crowded pavements to-day. The House of Lords was led to expect that some legislation would be forthcoming on this subject as recently as last March. In reply to a Question from the right reverened Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton replied, saying:
"My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will consider legislation making it an offence to park on the pavement as soon as a suitable opportunity arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/3/73; col. 1279.]
With respect, I suggest that this Bill is an excellent opportunity for a provision on pavement parking and I am sorry that the Government have not so far taken it.
850
Perhaps I may move an Amendment on that subject when the Committee stage is reached.
Clause 9 refers to vehicle lights. This will require careful consideration, and I also realise that it involves some measure of agreement with the E.E.C. I have a bee in my bonnet about stationary vehicles. Accidents with stationary vehicles are such killers and so often arise through insufficient or obscured rear lights. Are we going to be fully satisfied that the regulations under the Act will insist on a sufficiency of red lights on the rear of big vehicles? I forget what the required height is, but I know that the minimum height is specified in the existing regulations. I personally believe it is too high for the drivers of smaller cars to see the rear of a big vehicle. On the other hand, the lower the lights the more likely they are to be obscured by mud and snow. I should be interested to know to what extent the regulations will provide a series of lights, low and high, at the rear of heavy vehicles.
Talking about lights, I should like to mention the "Hazard Warning" switch system which, as your Lordships know, is now becoming more common. I refer of course to the switch which can be put on in an emergency which turns on all four trafficators. Perhaps the noble Viscount knows that this is a matter which is already under consultation between ourselves and the Continent. I also "got it up the backstairs" that the Department of the Environment are in favour of pressing on with the "Hazard Warning" system on cars. I should like to see it become an obligatory fitting on new cars, rather as the seat belt is now obligatory.
That brings me to the matter of seat belts about which I have prepared no notes. I imagined that everybody would mention them and seat belts have not yet been mentioned at all. I know the difficulties. I have a daughter in Victoria, Australia, where seat belts have been compulsory for some time now. Manifest advantages have been displayed by the resultant reduction in the serious accident and fatality figures. Perhaps when the noble Viscount replies he will be able to say what the Government's approach to this is. I believe the real difficulty

851
in making the wearing of seat belts compulsory in this country would be enforcement, and the police feel strongly about this. At the same time, there is no doubt that the latest designed seat belts, the one-hand operated seat belts, are an enormous improvement. I must tell your Lordships the story of my son when he was younger. He was getting into my car and I said, "Buckle up your seat belt". He replied, "Oh, dammit Daddy, I shall die of old age before I can find the thing". The fact is that that was one of the old designs. I believe that the future designs will have to be the one-hand operated type if they are going to be used at all.
Clause 12 has been referred to and the matters raised were cleared up when my noble friend mentioned Lord Monck's inquiry, and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I have a three-year licence which was issued in my 72nd year. I wondered exactly where I stood. Of course as a Scotsman I am delighted to hear that I can get a licence free in the future; but at the same time, joking apart, when my noble friend said the word "free" I thought he said "Screen". I say that deliberately, because I believe that at our age there should be an obligatory medical examination. On the other hand, if it is a three-year licence it will require the declaration to be filled in as it is to-day.
That brings me to the question of a licence lasting for three years, or to the age of 70, whichever is the longer. I was delighted to hear the remark of the noble Baroness about the physical condition of a licence after floating about from car pocket to car pocket, from jacket to jacket and from pocketbook to pocketbook for something like 52 years, which would be the case of a licence issued at the age of 18. When we come to the Committee stage—as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said—this is something we must consider carefully. Perhaps a five-year licence might be helpful to the police having regard to the present complexity of issuing licences every three years. Of course, if we are suddenly going to reduce this burden, what is going to happen to the computer? I imagine some other jobs will be found for it. On that subject, too, not only is there the question of the physical con
852
dition of a licence lasting some 50 years but it has been made clear to me by one party that they feel that the existing system of one's having every so many years to fill up a form is a reminder of the obligation on the holder of the licence to be sure that he is fit. It has been mentioned by one noble Lord already to-day that one could lose a leg and have two years of the licence still to ran without having to declare one's disability. That, of course, is an extreme case. The fact is that if there is to be no reminder of any sort for a period of 50 years, it is conceivable that people might become casual about the obligation to notify the authority if they find themselves to be failing in any way.
My Lords, we have had a brief and satisfactory debate about Clauses 14 and 15 so I will not go on with that, except to say that my noble friend's indication that the licensing of a heavy vehicle driver was going to be a progressive system takes a great weight off my mind. Of course that subject will be debated when we come to it in Committee. To conclude, my Lords, there is one fact abort which I am not quite clear—I cannot find it in either the 1972 Act or the Bill we are discussing. Are we satisfied that the penalties for overloading and for improperly secured loads are adequate? That is something that needs to be watched because of the danger of the awful accidents that occur. My Lords, I would only ask the foregiveness of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross if I am not here when he winds up, but I have to catch a sleeper train to Scotland.
8.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, I will start by thanking my noble friend Lord Aberdare very warmly indeed for his gracious reference to me in his opening speech in connection with the fact that I drew his attention to the situation regarding driving licences of those who attain the age of seventy. At the same time, I should like to congratulate him heartily because this is the first time, in my experience, or, I think, in anybody else's, that a Minister has given a reply to a question more than two years before an answer was required. All I can say, having heard there is going to be a freeze, is "Roll on 7/11/1975". In my humble

853
opinion, my Lords, drivers are divided into two classes: those who drive, or try to drive, with due care and attention, and those who drive without either care or consideration for others or without regard to warning notices. In this brief speech I am going to refer only to the first class, because only penalties can deal with the ones who drive without care or consideration.
Reference has already been made by my noble friend Lord Ferrier and by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to Clause 8, which places a statutory duty on local authorities to carry out road safety functions, and I want to mention two which I suggest should be brought to their attention. The first is the double white lines—and I am talking about those where one white line is broken and the other is continuous—and the second is warning notices. As to double white lines, item 53 on page 11 of the Highway Code reads:
"Where there are double white lines in the middle of the road and the line nearer to you is broken, you may cross it to overtake if you can do so safely and before reaching an unbroken white line on your side. A broken line does not mean that it is safe to overtake."
That is fair enough, but having observed certain broken and continuous white lines beside each other round about the country I was a little worried, because I have seen certain places where there were broken white lines on my side of the road but where it would never be safe to overtake.
I tried to get a little information, and an unofficial reply given to me was, "Ah, you should see our computer; we always work these things out properly". The indication that where a broken white line was made and it was done by computer should mean that it accorded absolutely with the Code. I then received a rather more official reply, which said that these lines conformed to a "speed visibility criteria". That was a bit too much for me—I only went to Eton—so I wrote to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who, as usual, was extremely helpful. He confirmed that the speed visibility criteria was the factor that decided the placing of these lines, but he also sent me extracts from Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual, I must say that Appendices 1 and 2–though I could not understand a word of them—seemed to provide a very comprehensive system for deciding where
854
the broken and continuous white lines should be placed. But my query still is whether the system under Appendices 1 and 2 of this chapter are always employed.
The fact is that I have seen many cases where it would never be safe to cross over a broken white line on your side, either because the visibility was insufficient or because the distance between the places where you changed from your broken to your continuous white line was too short. If my noble friend Lord Aberdare or my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross would ever dare to honour my humble roof, I will undertake within an hour's drive—and I also undertake to be breathalysed before we start out—to show them quite a number of cases where I think they would agree that a broken white line should never have been placed.
Secondly, my Lords, there are these warning notices. We have all seen them. You come across, first of all, a notice which indicates "Road works", showing a gentleman who looks as though he is shovelling coal into a boiler. Then you come to another one, "Reduce speed now", and the third, "Traffic signals ahead". There are others, as well. These are all excellent when the reason for observing them is valid, but they are too often left up when they are not needed. After passing two or three of these series of notices and finding nothing whatever to prevent him from going straight ahead without peril, even the most careful driver becomes cynical. He then disregards the next lot of notices, which are probably operative, and therefore there is trouble. I would suggest to my noble friends that it be urged on local authorities that they should very carefully re-check the broken and continuous white lines which they have in their various counties or districts, and, secondly, that warning signs should be removed, laid aside, turned round or whatever should be done when they are not intended to be operative. I feel that if these two things were done it would help the honest-to-God motorist—the fellow who does try to drive carefully—in a very difficult job.
8.30 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I appreciate that it is a very late hour at which to start a speech. I suppose the inducement is to finish it as quickly as possible. My reason for rising at all at this late

855
hour is that I consider that something which has already been referred to, both by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, should be brought a little more forcibly to the attention of the noble Viscount who is about to reply.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Not yet, my Lords.
LORD JANNER: Well, my Lords, I shall do my best to make my speech as short as possible. I feel, as another noble Lord felt when speaking a few minutes ago, that it would be better if, instead of Amendments coming forward from some person outside the Government, the Government themselves considered the question I am raising between now and when we discuss this Bill in Committee. This is what I hope will happen after I have spoken, if I can manage to bring forward my points as they should be made. If they were brought forward in that way, they would, I am sure, compel the Government to think twice about the position in regard to what I suggest.
I want to refer to the question of the magistrates' courts. I believe from what has been said already that the Government would be prepared, if convinced in the debate here, to consider that the Bill should be amended. First of all, I think we ought to look at this matter in true perspective. Who are the people concerned, the magistrates? The magistrates themselves deal with 98 per cent. of criminal cases in the court of first instance—adult and juvenile courts. I think I have some experience in this connection in two respects. First, I have lived with my wife who has been a magistrate for nearly 38 years and who to-day is an officer of the Magistrates' Association, and I know quite a number of other magistrates as well. I too practised in the courts in my early days as a solicitor and had the opportunity of seeing the whole situation from a different angle.
Magistrates are competent people, and have been accepted as competent people, to decide very important issues. In fact, recently they have been given duties in the Crown Courts which are very similar to the duties that the judges themselves have. Indeed, the two magistrates who
856
sit with the judge can in certain cases overrule the judge himself if they feel differently and make a decision which is different from his opinion. So in fact it has been recognised that magistrates have this competence, either because of their long experience in the courts, or, if newly elected, because of the compulsion for them to undergo training to fit them for the job. I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me for introducing the matter in this way, but I think this is important, because if magistrates express a view it is obviously one which might easily be expressed by judges who sit in the Crown Courts; indeed, perhaps magistrates have more experience and understanding of cases (and I say this with all due respect) than some of the judges. Two magistrates must sit with a judge in the Crown Courts, with equal powers of decision on all appeals, sentencing and borstal recommendations. They are tremendously important duties and indicate that they are capable of giving opinions which are sound.
Hidden in a quiet corner of this Bill are some big changes in principle in regard to penalties in the magistrates' courts and the resultant effects. From page 64, Schedule 5, paragraph 4, it might be surmised that the raising of a fine to £400 had little significance. In fact, these alterations take from the magistrates' courts the power to imprison defendants for all road traffic offences, except driving while disqualified. I should like noble Lords to realise that there is no intention on the part of the magistrates themselves to desire these powers for power's sake. They have formed their conclusions after very careful consideration by their Road Traffic Committee and by the Council of the Magistrates' Association.
May I suggest that the Government by their proposals would be attempting to pre-empt decisions of the James Committee, who are at present sitting to consider the distribution of criminal work in the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts. If I may use an expression which I think is Parliamentary but not very elegant, I think they are "jumping the gun".
The Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks Society have made joint representations to the Home Office. It is unusual for them to think identically upon any particular project or matter.

857
In this particular case they are both opposed to the principle of withdrawing the power of imprisonment for serious motoring offences from the magistrates' court. As we have heard already from the noble Baroness, the power is not used very much, and she has given figures which fully illustrate the position in so far as convictions are concerned. This morning there was a meeting of the Council of the Magistrates' Association. They considered the whole case put forward by the Government and that is the reason why I prefaced my remarks by referring to the position of magistrates and why we should take notice of what they say.
This is the resolution:
"That in view of the severe restrictions on passing sentences of imprisonment, which already exist and which were reinforced by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, the power of magistrates' courts to imprison offenders for the more serious motoring offences or associated serious offences of dishonesty"—
and I think that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foot—
"should not be abolished; decisions of principle in regard to penalties of imprisonment in summary cases will inevitably pre-empt the recommendations of the James Committee."
It is obvious that the purpose of the Government in withdrawing the power of imprisonment is to take away from the offender the right to opt for trial by jury in the Crown Court. Presumably the idea is to clear the backlog in those courts, but according to my information, in the Provinces the Crown Courts are rapidly catching up with this backlog and it is only in London that there is to-day a big problem.
Some of the side effects of these changes are that neither the adult magistrates' court nor the juvenile court will be able to send defendants to detention centres or attendance centres or make a community service order. Additionally, they will not be able to issue warrants for the arrest of people who have not paid the fines. I should like to refer to that for a moment or two. The removal of a power to impose imprisonment will remove the powers of committal for borstal training (and I have already referred to detention centres and attendance centres), hostel and guardianship orders under the Mental Health Act 1959, orders of remand for medical reports
858
under Section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 and, possibly, community service orders, with which the Government were so pleased with their recent legislation. That being the case, once a defendant is convicted, it is not possible for a magistrates' court to ensure his presence by the issue of a warrant unless the court wishes to consider imprisonment or disqualification. The removal of the power to imprison and the substitution of an increased fine means that for all the offences of dishonesty and fraud set out in the Schedule, the court has no power to secure the defendant's presence, no matter how substantial the fine which is imposed.
These are practical people. I have my information from the practical people themselves and I am prepared to accept it; and I hope that the Government will do the same on reconsidering the matter. I do not think this is going to help the final view that it will reduce the number of cases in the Crown Courts. I do not think that if a court considers a case is sufficiently serious and it has the power to send it to the Crown Court, and if the prosecutor thinks the same and has the power to ask for it to be sent to the Crown Court, there will be any lesser number of such cases for the Crown Court if we retain this provision for the magistrates' court itself. Obviously the sentence which the magistrates' courts can impose is a comparatively light sentence for some of the offences, and those offences which require only a term of imprisonment to be imposed, or a shorter sentence could easily be dealt with by the magistrates' courts.
After all, what does a fine mean to some people? Just look at the position. A wealthy person commits a very serious offence; he comes before the magistrates' court and that court imposes a maximum fine of £400. It may mean nothing to him at all. It may not he a deterrent of any kind. Whereas if a term of imprisonment were imposed, even if the term were suspended, that would mean very much to that individual and he would still have the right to appeal if he thought that the term of imprisonment had been wrongly imposed upon him.
Another point I should like to make, and which I hope the Government will take note of, is that a person wants to have the right to go to a higher court and

859
have the case tried by jury. Some people feel that even if a small tine is likely to be imposed they want the right to have a trial by a higher court. My experience is that when one speaks to a person who is subjected to only a small fine he sometimes feels just as strongly as a person who has had a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. It comes to him as just as much of a shock. It may sound unreasonable to us when we think about a small fine, but the fact is that that is how some people think who do not want any kind of fine imposed upon them at all.
I could of course elaborate on the provisions in the Bill, but I hope that the Government will take into consideration the point of view that has been expressed, and very much more forcibly and in better terms than I could, by the Magistrates' Association. I do not think for one moment that they would abuse the position as it stands. I do not think they have abused the position. They feel as I feel, and as many others feel, that to remove what they consider to be a deterrent effect in respect of serious traffic crimes is not reasonable and it should not be the only way left to them to send a case to the Crown Court if they think it is not so terribly serious as to incur long sentences, because that will merely load up the Crown Court with cases where perhaps they might think that a month's or two months' imprisonment would be sufficient. It should also not be left purely to the prosecutor. I do not want to go into lengthy reasons in connection with that. Some interesting comments have been made in the Press and elsewhere in recent days about some of the results of considering prosecutions and defences, and I hope and believe that the Government will take into consideration what has been said by the Association, and I hope to some extent what has been said by myself, and that at the Committee stage they will come forward and say. "This is wrong: we have changed our minds on this and we ourselves will introduce an Amendment".
8.50 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, this Bill is yet another effort made by various Governments over the last 70 years or so to meet the ever
860
increasing problems that continue to arise as a result of the transport revolution created by the introduction of the internal combustion engine some 80 years ago. Next January 1 is the 70th anniversary of the inception of compulsory number plates and when the speed limit was increased from 12 m.p.h. to the terrible speed of 20 m.p.h. This legislation was introduced by my own father in another place. Then, as now in this Bill, there was no great principle but just more rules and regulations, many of which are necessary and, indeed, welcome.
Before dealing briefly with one important omission from the Bill I should like briefly to make one or two points about three clauses. First of all, with reference to Clauses 1 to 5 and Clause 22, there is the question of whether when a car is stolen the obligation still rests with the owner. I make this point because the other day there was a report that a car had been stolen, the fact was reported to the police and the owner had to pay a great deal of money to get it out of the compound.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I can clear this up now. There is an express exemption in the Bill for that circumstance.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount. Secondly, I should like to welcome Clause 6, the banning of parking on urban crossroads. If one looks at the Bill, this will apply to many country districts as well. I hope it will. I hope the Ministry will look at the method by which the banning of parking is marked on the street, because there is nothing more hideous than enormous double yellow lines in country districts, in beautiful villages and small towns. Perhaps some attention could be given to this. Necessary though it is to make a visible sign, I do not think double yellow lines are the best way of doing it.
I particularly welcome in Clause 8 the need for local authorities to investigate accidents. One of the most ridiculous signs in this country is the "black spot" accident sign. If anything, this sign is a terrible reflection on the attitude of the road authorities. Accidents are caused by bad road design, and not by drivers looking for accidents. I hope that, as a

861
result of this Bill, we shall see that rather ridiculous sign removed from British roads.
I now come to my main point. I think the Bill misses a great opportunity to legislate for the compulsory use of safety belts. There is a good place for belting up by law, and I am not referring to changing the rules in your Lordships' House! In 1971, 2,750 people died and 35,000 people were injured as a result of road accidents in cars and light vans. The financial cost to the nation was estimated to be about £111 million, but the costs in human suffering obviously cannot be measured. World-wide research indicates that if all vehicle occupants wore seat belts at all times, fatalities would be reduced by 50 per cent. and serious injuries by about one-third. This would mean in the United Kingdom alone the saving of 1,000 lives and 14,000 injuries. Research also indicates that there is no other practical way of achieving such reductions. Here is a challenge to all those who are constantly asking for ways of reducing accidents. It might be done by making the widest, compulsory use of safety belts.
I think Her Majesty's Government are interested in the reaction of people to this. They will be comforted to know, no doubt (as they may already know) that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and the Automobile Association have said that they believe the wearing of belts by drivers and front seat passengers of cars could make a significant and substantial contribution to the reduction of death and injury on our roads. There has been excellent recent publicity by the Department of the Environment in the "clunk-click" campaign, led by the worthy Jimmy Savile. This campaign has been helpful and worth while, but it seems unlikely that it will be enough to make the reduction in injuries which could be made. Of course, it is appreciated that there are drivers and passengers who, for valid physical reasons, may not be able to wear seat belts. Therefore, legislation would have to provide for exemption in such cases, possibly evidenced by a doctor's certificate.
It is true also that since 1965 the front seats of cars and vans are already required to be equipped with seat belts Therefore, I do not think we can accuse the motor industry or the seat belt manufacturers
862
of having any commercial interest in supporting legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. They believe it will save unnecessary misery and suffering. It would not be possible at this stage to introduce compulsory rear seat belts, but this will have to come. It would be a good thing if it did. A second alternative to compulsory seat belts would be the fitting to all new vehicles of a complex passive occupant restraint system where one cannot drive one's car away unless the belt is fitted. This kind of system is in operation in America at present, but many people find ways of cheating. There is, too, a vulnerability to failure of the mechanical system in the case of an accident.
My Lords, people might say that the compulsory wearing of seat belts could be an infringement of personal liberty. I do not believe this. I hope that your Lordships' House will agree that the cost to the community of road accidents is not just limited to the person involved, his family or his employers. There are the costs of the public services such as the police, ambulance, medical and legal services and on the whole community. There is an obligation on each of us to reduce unnecessary calls on the limited resources of these services. None of us can go on an aeroplane without wearing safety belts, and I do not see why we should not get into the same habit when we ride in cars. To-day there is a report in the Press that there is an insurance benefit, because damages in an accident case were reduced because someone was not wearing a seat belt. There are several precedents, the most important possibly being in Australia. There is also a belting-up law in Malawi, New Zealand, Yugoslavia, and France, though in France only in rural districts. I think this is a mistake because I believe statistics show that most accidents occur in built-up areas, and often only 10 miles from home. The fact is that in Australia, in the State of Victoria there was a decline in deaths after sea belt wearing became compulsory of 18·5 per cent., and 17·3 per cent. of all vehicle accidents, which also includes accidents with motor cycles and bicycles where seat belts are not worn. I gather that the Home Office is concerned about police enforcement. I do not see why the police to-day cannot cope just as well. I am therefore asking to-night for the Government to consider

863
putting down an Amendment on Committee stage, an enabling clause, to make it possible for them to implement by Statutory Instrument and thus avoid future legislation on this subject. I believe it is right for public opinion to be tested, and I am sure the opinion of both Houses, too. I must give notice that if the Government do not put down such an Amendment, I shall do so, as I feel it is important for the House to discuss this most vital question so that lives and injuries may be saved.
8.59 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to know that my speech will take only a couple of minutes. I wish to speak briefly and draw attention to one road safety aspect which I regret has been omitted from the Bill. It is the question of the safety of school-children when they are either boarding or alighting from school buses. I wonder whether the Minister, perhaps at some time, not necessarily this evening, could let me have the figures for accidents which have occurred in this way over the past three or four years. Indeed, I think they will probably be of interest to many noble Lords, and I fear we should probably be appalled and horrified at the size of the figures.
Only three weeks or so ago in a village near my home an accident occurred. Two youngsters who were getting off the school bus saw their mother, who had come to meet them, ran across the road hand-in-hand, and, unfortunately, bang, that was that; one was killed pretty well instantly and the other seriously injured. Obviously I cannot comment on this accident at the present time, but inevitably accidents such as those must be happening all too frequently. It is a problem which will probably be aggravated by the trend towards the centralisation of schools; obviously more and more youngsters will be transported by bus. Children will always be children, no matter how we try to teach them their kerbside drill; they are bound, from the sheer joy of living, momentarily to forget from time to time. In fact, only a year or so ago the young daughter of a friend of mine got off the bus, saw her pony in a field on the other side, and, unfortunately, the same thing happened; she was killed almost in
864
stantly. She momentarily forgot what she had been taught and the worst happened.
I feel that we should somehow try at least to lessen the danger—we cannot eliminate it altogether. Could not all school buses have large, adequately illuminated signs, both front and back, telling everyone exactly for what purpose they are being used? I should like to see some definite colour used for school buses, but that probably is not possible; it would be uneconomical, as the buses obviously have to be used for other purposes as well. Could they not have flashing lights—a red light, if you like—to be switched on when children are either boarding or alighting? I should like to see it made mandatory that all traffic, both approaching traffic and traffic from the rear, be compelled to stop when these lights are flashing. I believe this is the law in the United States and Canada, and possibly in many other countries; I am not sure about that. I feel it would be most advantageous if we could adopt a similar system. We should minimise the dangers in that respect. I appreciate that many problems are involved, possibly with a number of buses all getting to a certain school at the same time; but I think the main danger lies when youngsters are joyfully scrambling off the bus when they arrive home. I ask the Government to give this matter urgent and careful consideration, and if possible at a later stage to incorporate it into this Bill.
9.3 p.m.
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: My Lords, in the interests of brevity I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench will forgive me if I dispense with the usual pleasantries. I should like to comment on a number of clauses. I start with Clause 6, "Prohibiting on stopping of vehicles at urban junctions." I, too, am a little disappointed that the full effect of this clause is to be found in the regulations, and there appear to be a number of exemptions which will have to apply. In the main, nearly every junction in a city will come under this clause. One can foresee delivery vehicles being pushed further down the side roads, which inevitably will mean a longer waiting time and consequently additional cause of disruption. I think it would be helpful if in regard to the regulations we could have more information as to which way the

865
Government's intentions are likely to move. Clauses 9 and 10, dealing with the extension of the Construction and Use Regulation and with type approval, need little comment, unless it be to say that they must be warmly welcomed.
Clause 11 deals with unroadworthy vehicles and the sale thereof. This is a difficult situation. It affects the motor industry considerably, and it would be quite wrong to pretend that breaches of the intention of the existing law are not evidenced in nearly every local newspaper nearly every week. It seems to me that it would be even more helpful to the ultimate purchasers of a vehicle if incorported within this clause was a requirement that a vehicle which was being offered for sale should have a current Ministry test certificate. Your Lordships will probably remember that I have spoken on this subject before. Notwithstanding the imperfections of the existing M.O.T. test scheme, which I think is fairly widely admitted—we hope to see it revised in the not too distant future—I should have thought that this clause, with that addition, would prove to be more demanding than it is now drafted. On Clause 12, I should like particularly to refer to subsection (1)(c). Here there are provisions for altering the cases where a licence to drive a motor vehicle of one class operates as a provisional licence to drive others. It is my understanding that currently a motor car licence is acceptable as one for a lower class of vehicle, and is at the same time acceptable as a provisional licence for a higher class of vehicle. I should be grateful if my noble friend could put me straight on this point.
I wish to move straight to Clauses 14 and 15. These, as your Lordships will recall, deal with the minimum age for training of heavy goods vehicle drivers. They will also allow a certain graduated scale of age groups to drive certain classes of vehicles. While this is all very well, we should be looking not only at the age of the potential driver but also at the class of instruction that he is receiving. At the present moment it is not necessary for a heavy goods vehicle driving instructor to be registered or qualified in any other way than that of having himself a heavy goods vehicle driving licence of the appropriate class.
866
I believe that my noble friend Lord Aberdare said that all heavy goods vehicle drivers were trained by the Road Transport Industry Training Board. I think it is true to say that the majority are trained by the Board, whose pass rate is exceptionally high, but many others are trained in commercial schools whose training programme conforms to the I.T.B. requirements. There is no requirement on the instructor having any particular qualification. Indeed, it is in my own knowledge that there are driving schools employing as teachers men of the appropriate age, with the appropriate heavy goods vehicle driving licence, but who have never taught anything at all in their lives, and who have no experience other than their own training for driving heavy goods vehicles on the roads. So one can see that a man with a licence who has been to a training school for two weeks, has paid £150 or £180 for his course of instruction and has taken a fairly stiff test, can then set up for reward in teaching young people to drive heavy goods vehicles.
I fail to understand why for such drivers we cannot have similar controls as we have for private motor cars. Your Lordships will recall that all motor car driving instructors are required to be registered with the Department of the Environment. Originally this was some consumer protection as to the monies they were paying for driving instruction and it also had some safety element in it as well. But surely it may be argued that it is vitally important that heavy goods vehicle drivers should have the correct form of instruction from people who have undertaken a teachers' training programme as well as a driver's instructional programme. My noble friend on the Front Bench indicates that I need not labour this point any further; I will only ask him whether he will consider setting down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is not necessary.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will explain why it is not necessary. I have read carefully and cannot find why it is not necessary, but no doubt he will explain.
May I touch now on Clause 20, together with the Schedule. There are

867
two particular points that I should like to have seen included in Clause 20 and the Schedule; they refer particularly to Sections 62 and 82 of the 1968 Act—that is, to the powers of the licensing authority. It is my view that the powers of the licensing authority when considering the application for an operating licence are too restricted. There is, for example, no power for the authority to demand any documents; nor do they have the power to examine the maintenance and repair facilities other than the applicant's own facilities. In the first case, they have no power to establish whether the applicant, whether he be an individual or a company, has financial resources to enable him to undertake the obligations of a licensed operator. They have no power to examine documents relating, perhaps, to a previous bankruptcy, or even to previous convictions. It would be much fairer if the authority could have such powers, which would ensure that the integrity of a potential operating licence holder is more correctly ascertained.
So far as repair and maintenance facilities are concerned, if the applicant states, "I have no facilities. I am getting Mr. So-and-So to attend to my repairs and maintenance", the licensing authority have no power to inspect such facilities. It is certainly within my knowledge that there are a number of operators who are using outside facilities which fall far short of any reasonable standard for the maintenance of any lorries.
The last point within this clause that I should like to mention is that set down in Section 69 of the 1968 Act, which deals with prohibition orders. That section says quite clearly that a licensing authority may revoke or suspend a licence, and it then sets down the various conditions that must be considered in the revocation or suspension of a licence. One of those conditions is the prohibition orders that may have been issued against an operator. The prohibition order is very often issued on the opinion of an examiner, and there is no appeal whatsoever against this order. If the operator, without doing any work at all to his lorry, takes it to a Ministry of Transport testing station, the examiner there may issue a G.V.10 clearance certificate because in his opinion no fault is to be found. This, again, is a matter of
868
opinion. The failure to issue a clearance certificate has an appeal content. Even if the G.V.10 is issued without appeal or on appeal, and is substantiated, the original prohibition order still remains on the record, and it can be a significant factor if the licensing authority should have any cause to consider the revocation or supension of an operator's licence.
In other respects, my Lords, I am very happy with nearly all the provisions of this Bill. However, I shall look forward to the Committee stage, when a number of detailed points can be further examined.
9.17 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords. I shall follow my noble friend by not making too many pleasantries, but I must say that he did at least end up his speech by being pleasant. In welcoming this Bill I should like to make a few brief observations. At this late hour I shall make some general comments only on Clauses 15, 16 and 17. dealing with public service vehicles. On Clause 15, may I congratulate the Government in going some way towards finding means of investigating the possibility of reducing the minimum age for P.S.V. drivers, while paying due attention to public safety aspects. I was very interested to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, had to say on that on this clause and also, particularly, on the clauses which follow.
On Clause 16. however, I am not too sure whether the Government have not gone too far by freeing the private motor car and the private mini-bus. It is now illegal for private car owners to carry passengers who pay the driver for doing so. Of this, I am sure, few people are aware, and I personally must confess that I was aware of this fact only recently. One could argue that this has been an anomaly and that, therefore, as such, it should be corrected. The trouble is that the provisions of this Bill create similar difficulties, and the new law would be equally unenforceable. The number of seats permitted in a private car is now being increased from eight to nine, in line with the E.E.C. requirements. This will entirely free these larger vehicles from adequate control in competing with public road transport. By doing so, the private motor car could have a serious effect on the economic running of P.S.V. services, leading in

869
some cases to their total disappearance, unless that would be contrary to the public interest. Companies ask local authorities for increased grants which they may he reluctant to pay as they do not appreciate the value of a service until they have lost it. The private mini-bus, by being able to carry larger numbers, could have a still worse effect. In time, one could envisage people running a nice sideline. Your Lordships may say, "Jolly good luck to them", but I fear that because of this many others could be deprived of public transport, and therefore the whole object of this clause could be defeated.
My noble friend Lady Macleod was very right to pay attention in her speech to the problems of people living in rural areas, but we must be careful that we do not (for the want of a better phrase) throw the baby out with the bath water and leave them in an even worse state than they were in before. My noble friend could say in his winding-up speech—and I should think he might do—that this is all protected by the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act, which concerns hackney carriages.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is not a point I am going to take.
Loan TEVIOT: It is a point which my noble friend could have taken, but I would remind him—I do not need to remind him now—that this Act was passed nearly half a century before the internal combustion engine was invented, and times have now changed. That being so, would it not be better to reform that Act before proceeding with this clause? Furthermore, there are considerable areas in the country where there is no hackney carriage legislation in force. That happens in most rural areas and in some boroughs—even those with a 30,000 population.
As I understand it, under Clause 17 the mini-bus now holding a maximum 12 seats which might be increased to 15, will be allowed to charge separate fares while remaining a contract carriage under a road service licence; whereas Clausel9 states that such licences will be granted only in the public interest. It appears that the public interest does not matter in the case of mini-buses. Admittedly, Clause 17 gives the proviso that they shall
870
not operate in an urban area on a specified bus route. This is where the trouble lies. As my noble friend knows, it has been impossible in the past adequately to define an urban area. Furthermore, what is a "bus route" or "stage carriage"? The definition given is, as I have said, quite inadequate. I will also mention that there are some surprising stage carriage routes these days and I think that the definition of those will need to be tidied up. Another unclear term which also will have to be dealt with is the good old "plying for hire". I hope that I have explained adequately my general points. It only remains for me to say that I shall be back again on Committee stage with some Amendments developing these ideas which I trust your Lordships will listen to sympathetically.
9.21 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late hour. I will do so briefly. I have a couple of points to make, first on Clause 6, the parking of vehicles at junctions. I think this is extremely good so far as it goes. I think that apart from the safety aspect it would help the traffic to flow more freely. Anyone coming from Charing Cross towards your Lordships' House will notice that invariably there are delivery vehicles parked all the way along by the bus stops, so preventing the buses from coming to a halt by the stops and interfering with the traffic flow. That is only one example of many such junctions in central London.
There is one point that I want to mention about Clause 8 which I think is of some importance. The local authorities are to be required to carry out investigations on roads other than trunk roads within their area and to take such steps as appear to be necessary for improving safety and preventing accidents. It occurred to me that in the case of Greater London most of the serious accidents were on the metropolitan roads. To take Orpington as an example, a series of accidents take place at the crossroads at Court Road, many of them fatal. This situation has existed for a number of years. The difficulty is that the local authority is unable to take any action because these being metropolitan roads they come under the Greater London Council. As I understand it, this clause means that the Outer

871
London boroughs could carry out investigations on the metropolitan roads because they are not trunk roads; they are specifically defined as not being so under Section 17(1)(c) of the London Government Act. They would then be powerless to do anything about the accidents they were investigating. They would have no authority to make underpasses for pedestrians, or footbridges for pedestrians over particularly dangerous junctions such as the one I have mentioned in my former constituency.
The third point is that if the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, decided to put down an Amendment providing for compulsory seat belts I should be delighted to support him. I think this reform is overdue. I put down a Question in March 1972 asking whether the Government would consider making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, replied very courteously, as he always does, saying that he felt it a matter better done by persuasion than by compulsion. Since then we have spent £1½ million on the excellent advertisements by Jimmy Savile and I believe that they have had some effect; because the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, gave me at that time was that only one in 7 drivers used a seat belt, and I understand from the figures provided by the Automobile Association that now the numbers have gone up to 30 per cent.
But that is not good enough. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, showed what a tremendous carnage is still occurring as a result of our not following legislation which is now in force in many other countries, including Australia and New Zealand, and most recently in France. It was interesting to me when I was on a visit there last month and staying with some English friends to see how naturally they used seat belts when perhaps they would not have done so had they been in Britain. I do not believe that there is any public resistance to this. Polls taken, the last one in November. 1972, showed that the majority of people would be in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Once the Government showed a lead I think that the majority of drivers would use them.
872
My Lords, we are at the stage now that we were immediately prior to the introduction of the breathalyser legislation some years ago, when the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Marples, was saying that Governments should not get too far ahead of public opinion and that he was not yet convinced that if such legislation was introduced it would be respected. We have seen the result of introducing it: casualties were reduced considerably, although I am sorry to say that now there is a rather more casual observance of breathalyser legislation than when it was first introduced. I believe that if we took the opportunity provided by this Bill to introduce legislation, the public would come round to accepting it, and we should save many lives, and the tremendous amount of damage done to human beings as a result of road accidents would be greatly reduced.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, may I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Phillips who was unable to remain until this very late hour. She, and I, thought that this debate would have ended earlier. She regrets her absence, as I do, but I should have regretted it more if the hour were earlier. No doubt we shall hear from her during the Committee stage when we reach it.
9.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that this is an occasion when noble Lords, and indeed noble Baronesses, may be forgiven for having found that the debate has gone on rather longer than they expected. Although many of them have personally apologised for their inability to stay until the end of the debate, the House will forgive all of them if for once the courtesies have to be forgone. This is an important Bill and it is unfortunate that it had to take second place to the Emergency debate, but I hope we shall have further opportunities to hear from those who would have liked to stay until the end of the debate. I will see what I can do to deal at any rate with some of the points which have been raised.
I think that the Bill has been generally welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said at the beginning. I did not get a feeling from the speeches of other speakers that there was any hostility to what is in the Bill. The noble

873
Lord, Lord Champion, put his finger on the trouble, which is that here we are dealing with things that inexplicably, have been left out of previous legislation, or points that have been wrong in previous Bills. Also, we have been given many examples of matters which noble Lords think have, inexplicably, been left out of this Bill. So we have a miscellany of points which have been made. May I first make one general remark on matters which have been discussed and are already in the Bill, also upon what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, called the "markers" for the Committee stage and upon points which other noble Lords have mentioned relating to subjects which are not in the Bill. We are grateful for the warning and the information in advance, and we shall study what has been said.
It might be tidy if I attempted to deal first with some of the points raised about matters which are not in the Bill, and then come on to some others. I take these in a slightly haphazard order. My noble friend Lord Hacking gave us a very interesting speech on the question of breathalysers. I know very well that this is a matter that has puzzled the lawyers and the courts, and my noble friend was quite right to raise this question because it has come to this House, as he told us, sitting in its judicial capacity, on a number of occasions. I do not think I can go into the extremely complex details of this matter any more than the noble Lord himself did; but I assure him that the Government keep a very close eye on this matter. To some extent I think that not only the Government but everybody else can take some comfort in the way the courts themselves have sorted out many of the difficulties. I know people will go on finding—or thinking they can find—loopholes, because they hate to be disqualified; they will try almost anything. But it is astonishing how your Lordships' House, sitting in its judicial capacity, has managed to close up loophole after loophole, although I appreciate there may still be some, because the opportunity is almost unbounded. I am glad that the noble Lord has added to our knowledge from his professional capacity. I am not certain that a complete review of the whole of this subject is something one could embark upon in this Bill, because it is a large and complicated area. I
874
think we have to try to keep within the bounds of what is already a fairly general Bill, covering a large number of subjects.
I think noble Lords can be fairly satisfied that if the Government found that there was a major flaw in the legislation, they would not be slow to act. But so far it has been rather extraordinary and exceptional cases that have been used as examples, such as the noble Lord indicated. When one realises that convictions numbered about 40,000 in 1971, this is biting. I think it is the very fringe activities that concerned the noble Lord. So perhaps he will allow the Government to continue to keep an eye on this, even if we cannot put it all right under this legislation.
That leads straight to the question of seat belts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, my noble friend Lord Montagu and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Again this is a matter that is at the moment very much in everybody's mind, and we realise that what is at stake here —as noble Lords have said—is something in the region of 13,000 serious casualties a year, and 1,000 fatalities. After all, those who do not protect themselves by wearing their seat belts run the risk of very disfiguring and disabling injuries to their faces—indeed, to their brains and to their whole future. We know from research and actual experience in the parts of the world mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, among others, that these accidents could be avoided.
Apparently people, despite Mr. Savile, still do not use the protection they can give themselves. But as against that folly, we have influential voices such as have been raised this afternoon and evening urging the Government to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. That in its turn raises objections, in principle, to the restriction of individual liberty or the question of enforceability.
What I should like to do this evening, on the Second Reading of this Bill, is to leave it—I hope this will be satisfactory for a Second Reading—that the Government will be considering the views that have been received, not only to-day, but previously, and they hope to be able to be in a position to report on the consultations within the next few weeks. I do not think I can take it further than that. But nobody can possibly doubt

875
this is a matter that needs to be taken very seriously and considered.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier raised some points of maximum abstruseness. I am afraid I do riot think there is room in this Bill for the axle measurements above ground level or the size of lettering on street signs. We may also find difficulty in dealing with pavement parking, even if the 1835 Act is a little out of date, which I am prepared to concede. The only comfort I can offer my noble friend on his list is that there is at any rate something in the weighing provisions of this Bill to deal with overloading and the individual axle loads that can now be dealt with compulsorily or will be dealt with under Clause 13 of the Bill.
Again, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, that, though I have the greatest sympathy in regard to the fatalities that arise from school children running out from behind buses and other unfortunate accidents of this sort, we are getting into an area which involves fairly complicated consultation and fairly complicated equipment. The noble Lord's speech indicated that much. I wonder, again, whether in a comparatively short Bill like this we can fit in all these ideas, worthy though they are and much though one would desire them to save lives. It is simply a question of the scope of the possible. I believe noble Lords in all parts of the House would have so many good ideas for increasing road safety, perhaps most of which alas‡ we shall not be able to fit into this Bill. But I welcome the fact that noble Lords have put these points forward, because it is always worthwhile to hear the views of those who know about such matters, and of course the Government are pleased to consider them.
My Lords, that brings me to some of the matters contained in the Bill, a number of which have been the subject of comment this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised a number of points on Clauses 1 to 5, among them the question of how long the offence was required to have been committed before the six months in the Magistrates' Courts Act expired. The whole of this problem is extremely complicated. What I hope the noble Lord will do on this area of the Bill, if he is still puzzled by some things when, with his usual care, he has
876
read the Bill again, is to put down probing Amendments or Amendments to suggest alterations so that we may discuss these matters fully. I could give a long exposition of how this works, but I think at this stage of the evening, when I have already been speaking for 10 minutes, that would be rather too much. But this does not mean to say that we cannot discuss this question in great detail in the Committee stage and subsequent stages of the Bill.
I am satisfied—and I have been through them carefully—that the arrangements that have been made have produced a result whereby the owner, if he was not the driver, is protected, as far as it is possible to protect him. In this respect we have gone a long way. This, unfortunately, runs contrary to what another noble Lord said when suggesting that we should be rather tougher on the owner. It may be that we shall have to debate the philosophy as well as the details of this question in Committee. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, thought that these clauses were unexceptionable.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned diplomatic immunity and foreign drivers. This is a difficult area. I suspect that the constitutional position—the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will remember this, as I do, from legal training—is such that if they are parking their cars in wrong places there is little we can do about it, except possibly to rely on Lord Janner's son, who produces the "league table" in another place of the countries which offend most. Some extraordinary statistics appear in Written Answers in another place, and I hope they put some of those countries to shame for failing to pay the fines incurred by their diplomatic representatives. So far as foreigners are concerned, I suppose to some extent it is reciproc4 because the Britisher who parks somewhere that he should not park when he is abroad will probably come back again unscathed, as foreigners do in this country. It is difficult to devise a method which will satisfactorily require a person here on a short visit to came back and face the courts in this country. And, of course, it is not only parking offences to which this applies but to other serious driving offences as well. Again, the Government are considering this matter, though I do not think we have yet found the answer.

877
I was glad that noble Lords who considered the road safety aspects of this matter, such as my noble friends Lord Monck, Lord Ferrier and Lord Montagu, welcomed them. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Monck was a little mystified by some of the things which happened to white lines. I do not think he can be blamed, but I am not sure that this is a matter for legislation so much as one for local authority administration. As for the junctions, the markings and the various rules mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am sure we can talk more about these things at subsequent stages of the Bill rather than go into them further tonight. There will have to be exceptions, but noble Lords will wish to see them kept to a minimum, and my noble friends will be glad to consider these later on when we come to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked about the importance of bus lanes. Under the Functions of Traffic Wardens Orders, it is possible to allow traffic wardens to police bus lanes. I think it is possible for them to do that without further specific legislation. We have already got the powers and therefore we are assembling the ability, with the additions in this Bill, to enable bus lanes to be properly operated.
Noble Lords showed a great interest, and rightly so, in prospective disabilities. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier were both looking at the difficult problem of the length of time for which a driving licence could be issued without someone having to disclose that something was medically wrong. My noble friend Lord Ferrier suggested five years for the length of the licence. On balance, we think that a licence lasting to the age of 70 is a really worthwhile saving, in terms of expense and manpower. Therefore it has to be bolstered by the need to show to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the existence, or the incipience, of a disabling disease. There are diseases which are progressive, alas‡: diseases like sclerosis, arthritis and cataract, which may not at one particular stage be sufficient to deprive a person of his driving licence. However, it is well that people should be required to pass on the information that they are suffering from such diseases so that a check on the progress of the diseases may be carried out and,
878
if it becomes a disability, then I am afraid that unfortunately the licence may have to be withdrawn. It is a difficult balance to draw, but if you are going to have a licensing system which allows a licence to go on for as long as this—and we think there are advantages in it—then equally one has to be careful on the other side as well; and I doubt whether, in practice, this is going to be unenforceable or, indeed, held to be a very great restriction on people's liberty and wellbeing.
The question in Clause 13 of axle weights was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and he mentioned the Transport and General Workers' Union. In fact, the devices that the noble Lord wanted can already be required under the existing powers of the 1972 Act—or rather the Construction and Use Regulations made under it. What we are really doing in Clause 13 is looking at enforceability; we are trying to make it a requirement that drivers should take their vehicles over the individual axle weighing weighbridge in the correct way and at the correct speed. I do not thank any further powers are needed to provide this equipment. It may therefore be that if the noble Lord pursues this matter further he will find that we do not need any change in the law to meet that point.
Under Clause 14, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned some important points about heavy goods vehicle instruction. I should like to try to reassure him on this subject, because I indicated that I would do so. If I may put it as briefly as I can, detailed discussions have been held between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment and employers and employees in the industry. Agreement has been reached on a training scheme which will provide for the recruitment and progressive training of young people. A scheme has been agreed upon in order to carry this out. The answer to my noble friend's point about training is that under a part of the scheme this training will be undertaken in accordance with certain agreed and approved syllabuses, and practical driving instruction (and my noble friend was particularly concerned about that) must be given and assessed by instructors who have satisfactorily completed a course of training approved by the committee under the

879
scheme. Other instruction may be given by the employer or by educational or other training establishments. We have progress by voluntary agreement, if not all the way, at any rate along the way the noble Lord wanted to see.
He raised some incredibly complicated points under Clause 20 and Schedule 4. These are so detailed, and the matter is so complex, that it would be better to leave it, if he will forgive me, until another stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned the clauses about buses, as did my noble friend Lady Macleod, who welcomed these provisions; while my noble friend Lord Teviot, who was a little critical, thought we might have gone a little too far on this matter. Without going into it in too much detail, the best thing to do is what I asked when I was considering this matter: to look at some of the instances of what the Bill would allow people to do in a perfectly sensible way but which the law previously forbade them to do. My noble friend Lord Teviot referred to what one could do about taking people in a car. I know that this point is tied up with taxis and hackney carriage legislation. Even under public service vehicle licensing, it seems to be very restricted. As the law stands now, it is generally an offence for a car owner to offer lifts at separate fares without a public service vehicle licence and a road service licence as well —neither of which is at all easy to get. The result is, as my noble friend admitted, that many motorists knowingly or, as is more likely, unknowlingly break the law regularly; but of course there is negligible risk of detection.
On the other hand, reputable bodies, like women's institutions, who would like sensibly to be able to do this, dare not organise lifts of this sort for any kind of payment, because they know very well what the law is. The law as it stands is effective in the one area where it specifically operates against the public interest. Clause 16(1) would remove the anomaly. The remote village in the Cotswolds to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred can also be dealt with under Clause 16(2). Such vehicles as Dormobiles are increasingly popular with social clubs, and clubs have been formed largely to provide transport from remote villages which are now without a bus service. Clubs of
880
this sort often find it difficult to meet the administrative and financial criteria to get their public service vehicle licence, let alone their road service vehicle licence This is something on which we think we can relax the law and enable people to live much more easily in these villages, without being totally cut off by the lack of their own car.
My Lords, there is no doubt that apart—if I may put it this way—from the ever fresh and green subject of whether it is right to bring different parts of a Bill under different initiation orders about which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has indeed addressed the House before now, I think the real substance or the real heat of the argument on the Bill is undoubtedly going to arise on Clause 24 and Schedule 5. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned this as also did my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, made a powerful speech about it, all of which we should like to study. One has to get this into context, because although it is perfectly true that we are dealing with imprisonment, suspended sentences, community service orders and many other things in theory, we have to see the extent to which these have been used. The central issue in withdrawing from magistrates' courts the power to pass sentences of imprisonment and others as well for the more serious motoring offences is one of some importance, and as I said in my speech on the humble Address, one that I recognised to be controversial, and so it has proved.
Our main objectives are twofold: first of all, it has been said many times by this Government that our penal policy is to replace custodial measures where we can with non-custodial alternatives. If we cannot do this in the field of motoring offences where can we do it? This must be a place where the test of this policy must be examined and looked at with great care. The second point is the administrative objective of enabling the magistrates' courts—so rightly praised by the noble Lord, Lord Janner—to relieve some of the burden imposed on the Crown Court by large numbers of fairly minor road traffic cases where the defendant exercises his right to elect trial by jury. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned the Committee under Lord Justice James, but I do not think that

881
the present Bill impinges on the principle of that. That covers a much wider field. It may be prayed in aid, but in fact it is a very small element in the whole area being looked at by Lord Justice James and I do not think that anything he is looking at is affected in terms of principle by what we are putting forward here. In fact, we think we have a good opportunity here to rationalise the situation in respect of a large body of offences which do not merit trial by jury.
Although the noble Lord mentioned forgeries, falsifications and so on and he is quite right that they are involved here, in fact they have not merited very many prison sentences either, nor, indeed I am advised, have there been very many suspended sentences which have been the subject matter of what my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve was talking about. There will be the power to proceed on indictment in the case of the prosecution—the prosecution can choose in serious cases—and then of course the Crown Court will be able to pass sentences of imprisonment if it thinks this necessary. I know that there are the counter arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, put to us in the course of consultations: that we should fail in our objective of reducing the number of cases going to the Crown Court because the prosecution would use the indictment more often, or, alternatively, as the noble Lord said, the magistrates would refuse applications for a summary trial more frequently. This is a matter of speculation, but our judgment is that this would not be so, and that on balance we would satisfactorily relieve the Crown Court of a substantial amount of the burden that they have arising out of these hybrid cases.
I cannot stress too strongly that the removal of magistrates' power to send people to prison for offences of this kind is not intended by the Government in any way to be a weakening of the law. In fact, if one looks at the substantial increase in the maximum fines on summary conviction that the magistrates would be able to impose, one cannot possibly have any doubts of our acceptance of the seriousness of these offences. Certainly there is nothing by way of criticism of the method in which magistrates haw previously exercised their powers.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, might I ask this? If, as the noble Viscount says, one of the principles the Government have in mind in removing the powers of magistrates to send to prison for these offences is that they want to send fewer people to prison, and for a shorter period of time, are they prepared to take some step to reduce the penalties of imprisonment that can he imposed by the Crown Court on indictment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not altogether certain that this follows from the argument about the magistrates' courts. The argument that I thought was being put forward by those who are advocating the retention of the status quo, or something like it, was that the magistrates themselves ought to retain powers to imprison. It is perfectly true, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, that 96 per cent., I think, of these cases are dealt with by the magistrates. Therefore, if one looks at the matter statistically the likelihood of imprisonment being imposed seems very much greater if the power resides with magistrates than if it resides with the Crown Court. What we think is that the magistrates should have the powers to fine and that only the very serious cases should go to the Crown Court, in which case I accept that there may be a necessity to imprison or to send to borstal. It seems to me that we are attempting to tackle this matter at the right end by taking away the power to imprison in the less serious offence, while retaining the opportunity if it is necessary to be used in the more serious ones. I do not think there is any departure here from the Government's general attitude.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt; I appreciate it is very late and so on. But on the point the noble Viscount made about the James Committee, surely it is within the terms of reference of the James Committee to deal with a matter of this kind? They are going very thoroughly into the whole position. Does not he think that in the circumstances it might be left to them to make a decision, or at least to give advice as to what kind of decision should be taken?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, of course, and their decision could impinge upon this. What

883
I am saying is that the matters they are looking at are of very substantial principle. They go to the very root of the whole method. There are so many things involved. There are cases which start off before magistrates sitting as examining magistrates and which are turned into summary trials under Section 18(3); there are hybrid cases, cases which are being tried summarily and then the magistrates decide to deal with them by committing them to the Crown Court. There is a whole area here. There are options on one side; there are options on the other. To pick out a comparatively small number of cases, as is being done in this Bill, does not go to the principle of what the James Committee are looking at. I am afraid I shall just have to disagree with the noble Lord on this point.
The fact is that 5 per cent. of the Crown Court cases at the present moment are hybrid road traffic offences. That does not mean 5 per cent. of the workload, because of course, ex hypothesi, those are not guilty pleas, so they are tried; and they are taking up a great deal of the time of the Crown Courts. Ninety-six per cent. of the cases that go there go at the election of the defendant because he wants a jury trial. Just as an example of the amount by which the matter is loaded on to the Crown Courts because of the pure option that the defendant has, 96 per cent. is a remarkable indication that it is not the prosecution that is choosing the most serious cases to take to the Crown Courts. So we think that if we give the magistrates the extra powers, they will continue to show the restraint and discretion that they have already shown. They have already shown this in a sparing use of custodial sentences and it will enable us to advance along the road that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, agrees with the Government we should pursue, to try to keep people out of prison unless it is absolutely necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, asked us to take account of this, and of course we shall do so, but may I make one final plea on this subject? I see that I have spoken for as long to-night as I did last night, and I apoligise to the House, but I want to say this last thing. Rather than say to the Government. "Please put down Amendments", which is what
884
the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, we have set out in detail in this Bill, in Clause 24 and in Schedule 5, what we propose. We think at the moment that we have got this right, but I would suggest to noble Lords, and particularly those who are skilled in and have spoken on this subject, that they could assist everybody by examining the Bill in detail and criticising by way of specific Amendment where they think we have got it wrong rather than put down an Amendment to leave out Schedule 5 and Clause 24, which will get nobody anywhere. Let us attack this thing by looking at the details of the matter. I shall look forward to this. I am sure that I can rely on the assiduity of noble Lords who are so very good at this, and that we shall really have a constructive and successful discussion on this matter, to which I very much look forward and which will really help the Government in trying to ensure that we really have got this right.
I am sorry that I have not answered all the questions raised, but I think I have dealt with some of the major issues. There will be substantial debates during the later stages of this Bill. I am very glad indeed that noble Lords have welcomed it to-night and I hope that it may now receive its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2£, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (SALT) ORDER 1973
10.3 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL rose to move, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 16, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a pity that the introduction of these two measures has been delayed somewhat by necessary changes in business. I will try to be as brief as possible, and I think it may be for the convenience of the House, since both these Orders have a similar effect, if I speak to them together. The background to these two Orders was originally very well described by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who I feel

885
knows quite a bit about selling foodstuffs, in the debate in this House in November, 1970, when he said:
"… the C.B.I. recently said that industry is now irrevocably committed to metrication and that to delay is to get the worst of both worlds."—(OFFICIAL REPORT; 30 /11/70; col. 350.)
In the course of a debate on metrication in another place earlier this year, the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe, said that following discussions with industry he proposed to advertise draft Orders which would provide for the sale of pasta and salt in metric units. This is a further and necessary step to implement the Government's undertaking in its White Paper on Metrication, to remove barriers to the wider use of the metric system in this country.
Pasta and salt are included among the lists in the Weights and Measures Act of some forty or so basic foods which, when they are sold pre-packed, and only when they are sold pre-packed, may at present only be sold in imperial quantities. I may add that Italy at present also prescribe quantities for the sale of pre-packed pasta. These Orders will not oblige manufacturers to pack pasta and salt in metric quantities, but make available to them the option between continuing to use the imperial quantities specified in Article 4(a)(i) of the two Draft Orders, or they can now change to the new metric range specified in the following sections of the Orders.
Before my right honourable friend can exercise his order-making powers under the Weights and Measures Act 1963, he is required by the Act to satisfy himself that these proposals are generally acceptable to all organisations as appear to him to be representative of the interests substantially affected by the Orders. The proposals have been circulated to a wide range of the consumer and trade organisations (some 30, I believe) and enforcement bodies, a large number of which have made comments, particularly on points of detail. There was no adverse criticism of these proposals. Manufacturers in particular welcomed this positive move by the Government to remove obstacles to metrication in the retail food sector where the industry at large was keen to make the change. They had long since accepted the principle of metrica-
886
tion, particularly following our entry into the E.E.C.
Consumers generally recognised that metrication must inevitably come, but they were naturally concerned that the Government should do all in their power to see that there was an orderly change and that the consumer was adequately protected and informed about the changes that would be taking place. Perhaps I may quote what Sir Geoffrey Howe said in another place on these points:
"At present I have in mind two modest commodities, salt and pasta, and perhaps one or two others. Other important commodities will follow in, I hope, an orderly fashion. These orders and their timing will be tailored to the particular needs of the industry and of the consumer. I realise that, even with this carefully controlled process, the consumer needs to be assured about the impact on prices. This is why the careful presentation of the facts and information will be essential…."
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 24/7/73; col. 1432.]
I am trying not to comment further on such issues of prices at this juncture, although I can readily do so if pushed. I think it is here that we should pay tribute to the important work which the Metrication Board is doing to educate and help the consumer now that the change is switching from the industrial to the retail sector. They have planned an extensive programme of work over the next 12 months to provide practical help to consumers in the form of pocket conversion aids and comparison wall charts for display in shops. They have been successful in enlisting the support of some manufacturers who will helpfully display information on their packs to assist the consumer to familiarise himself or herself with the new sizes, and to continue to be able to choose the best buy for the family from the information provided. The Metrication Board and the Department of Trade and Industry are also actively working on other recommendations of the Consumer Safeguards Group.
My Lords, I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships that in making these modest moves forward, which must inevitably bring benefits through rationalisation to industry and through a greater variety and more competitive supply of goods to the consumer from domestic and Continental sources, the Government are striving to ensure an orderly change to the metric system with

887
the minimum of risk of confusion to the consumer. In closing, may I remind your Lordships again that these Orders are entirely permissive. They are not in any sense obligatory. They have been widely advertised and they have not been opposed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973, laid before the House on 16th October, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord on his short but excellent maiden speech from the Despatch Box. I understand that there are 51 essential items which will have to be dealt with in a similar manner, and I am therefore wondering why the Orders before your Lordships' House to-night are in respect of pasta and salt and not, for instance, sugar or tea. Can the Minister say why the Pasta Order comes into operation on July 1. 1974, while the Salt Order is delayed until January 1, 1975, which is 14 months ahead?
10.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I know that at this hour the one thing the House would like is for me to be as brief as possible, and I will try to be, but there are one or two things which I should like to say. First of all, I must declare an interest in so far as I am technical adviser to the Consumers' Association. All consumer organisations which have been consulted welcome these Orders. But what about the other 51 products? It is not true that you can always catch a bird by putting salt on its tail. The programme for metrication as a whole is going slower than anticipated; it was scheduled for 1965 to 1975. We have accepted the idea of metrication, so have consumer organisations; so there is no need to argue the case at this moment. But I should just like to note the following points. Out of 141 countries in the world 133 are going metric. The U.S.A. have legislation halfway through Congress. The U.S.A. industrial giants, Fords, Caterpillars, I.B.M., and I think some others, have already decided to go ahead with metrication straight away. With regard to progress in other countries, Australia
888
and New Zealand started later than we did but are now well in advance of us. Horse racing in 1972 was metric in weights and distances.
With regard to the consumer viewpoint, very briefly, as we are going metric, it is admitted that it must involve some disturbance to consumers. What we want is orderly planned progress, but the speed must not be too slow. We want a minimum period during which both metric and Imperial measures exist for the same class of goods. Loose and packaged goods should go metric at the same time. In this case I think diving off the deep end is far better than slowly stepping inch by inch into the cold water. We cannot keep the metricated E.E.C. products out of the country after 1977, and therefore it really is rather essential that consumers should have got used to metrication by then, and preferably considerably before then.
What is needed to speed up things? First of all, leadership from the Government. We need more of these regulations for the 51 products in this class, which I think somebody mentioned. Also more Government contracts could well follow the example of the Department of the Environment. This does a very great deal of good in speeding up metrication, which in most areas, of course, is voluntary. I can understand the Governments' hesitation, but I think they must steel themselves to be bold and resolute in pushing forward with metrication. There is, of course, a noisy, ill-informed vocal opposition, and this was in evidence in another place. I ask them to disregard it. It is absolute rubbish to talk about metrication by stealth. In any case, there is an 18 months delay in some products before the regulations become effective, which is certainly after the next General Election. I am sure that this should not become a Party issue.
Unless inflation is curbed, the worry about using metrication as an opportunity for increased prices is nothing like so serious, because the rise in prices will quickly overtake any tendency to put them up during the metrication period. If, of course, in the happy event when they become effective 18 months later we have cured inflation, we shall all say, "Please look at this carefully to see that advantage is not taken of the fact".

889
I have only two more points to make. First of all, we want a cut-off date. It may be a little too early to worry about this, but the one thing we do not want is a continuing mixture of metric and Imperial units. This is absolute anathema to consumers. Finally, unit pricing could be a tremendous help to consumers during and after the changeover.
10.15 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, I must first say that he managed to find another eleven commodities which, so far as I am aware, are unknown to the Government at this time. My information was that there were about 40 to be covered. However, we intend to press on as fast as seems practicable. The question about the dates is of wider interest because the whole principle has been to move when the industries are ready to move. It seems that the salt manufacturers needed a little longer to make the conversion of some of their plant. In overall timing it was hoped that the changes would have been made by the end of 1975, and I think that we are obliged to have ceased to discriminate against metric units by October, 1976, and the Imperial units—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, called it the "cut-off point are supposed to disappear by the end of 1979.
May I conclude by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his trenchant support of the principle lying behind these Orders. I can assure him that we are to some extent controlled by the speed with which industry moves,
890
but it may be that the trickle of these Orders will become a flood.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (PASTA) ORDER 1973
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Pasta) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 16, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  E.E.C. AND NORTH SEA GAS AND OIL
  E.E.C. AND NORTH SEA GAS AND OIL