Sitting of 30 July 1974

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

  WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND WATER SPORTS BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered.
  That Standing Order No. 205 relating to Private Business (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown signified.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed with amendments.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 15th October.

  MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday 15th October.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Dockyards (Civilian Work)
    Mr. Viggersasked the secretary of State for Defence what proposals are currently under consideration by Her Majesty's Government for the civilian use of Royal Naval dockyards.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): Because of the heavy load of naval work the Royal dockyards can undertake only a limited amount of civilian work. A number of inquiries are, however, being considered, but for commercial reasons I cannot at this stage disclose details of them or the firms concerned.
    Mr. Viggers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reading his ministerial reply. Can he give us more information? Who will run the dockyards if they are to be operated as industrial concerns? What industries will be operated in them?
    Above all, what regional benefits will be allowed to the dockyards which are outside the normal regional areas to enable them to compete on equal terms with yards in the North and West, or is the whole thing a smokescreen to prevent fear of unemployment as a result of defence cuts?
    Mr. Judd: It is too early to say what the outcome of the defence review will be, but our policy is to ensure that if any surplus dockyard capacity were to arise it would be put fully to productive use in the national interest under present control.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Can the Minister state the position with regard to the amount of civilian working at the Rosyth naval dockyard?
    Mr. Judd: The position for Rosyth is exactly as for the other dockyards. Our future policy is as defined in my previous answer.

    Oman
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned and non-commissioned Servicemen, and from what forces, are currently serving in Oman.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): About 200 volunteers from all three Services are serving on loan with the forces of the Sultan of Oman. A number of Army and RAF personnel are based at Salalah and at the RAF staging post on Masirah island. It is not customary to make public detailed deployments of Her Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Cook: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he also give the House the latest total of British casualties in this war? Can he clarify how many members of the Special Air Services are currently stationed in Oman and how, if they are there for personnel training, from time to time one of them is killed in a clash with rebel forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sorry war, now in its eleventh year, is one of the most pathetic examples of the major world blocs playing two tiny nations off against each other? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend seek an international agreement to limit the supply to both sides of advisers and equipment, without which the war could not continue?
    Mr. Mason: The men concerned are volunteers, and the Sultan is bearing all the costs. My hon. Friend is right: a unit of the SAS is in the Oman giving training assistance to the Sultan's forces. Occasionally there are casualties because they come into conflict with the rebels in the area, but I cannot give the exact figures of the casualties.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that his hon. Friend seemed to show more glee than regret at British casualties? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cares to withdraw what he said, well and good. If I am mistaken, so much the better. Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that Masirah Island is an essential point in the British defence strategy?
    Mr. Mason: I would not at this stage stress to what extent it is essential. We are using it at present as a Royal Air Force staging post. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my hon. Friends concern. I think he was registering concern that British Service men might be getting killed in the Oman. There is a conflict there, and I think he
    454
    was expressing concern that the quicker the conflict was ended, the better.

    Crowd Control (Police Training)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the use of military premises in the training of civilian police officers in techniques of crowd control.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): In agreement with the Home Office, we consider on its merits any request from the police for the use of Service premises and facilities in crowd control training.
    Mr. Huckfield: Does my hon. Friend recall that just before the miners' strike several examples were reported of soldiers and police training together in what was then euphemistically called crowd control? Can he give the House an indication of the extent to which it is still carried on? Can he also give an undertaking that the whole situation will be much more seriously kept in check in future?
    Mr. Rodgers: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that this is a matter which is very carefully considered. I can also say quite plainly that there is no question of there being any joint training of the Armed Forces and the police in the way he suggests.
    Dr. Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that co-operation between the civilian police and the military is very good training for some emergencies that might occur and that good liaison between the two bodies is of benefit to both?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that we must treat these matters in a relaxed and sensible way. What I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) is true. There is no joint training, nor do I think that there should be such training.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Does not the Army frequently fulfil what is commonly regarded as a civilian rôle? Is it not doing so in Northern Ireland? Is it not desirable that the Army should be trained for what it has to do?
    Mr. Rodgers: First I said nothing about not training the Army for rôles

    455
    which it has to fulfil. Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between the rôle that the Army carries out in Northern Ireland, with the full support of both sides of the House, and the sort of dangers about which my hon. Friend was concerned.

    Expenditure (Review)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he is likely to announce the review of defence expenditure.
    Mr. Fordasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he now in a position to provide further information about the progress of his defence review.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he intends making on defence expenditure following the defence review; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an interim statement about his review of defence expenditure.
    Mr. Mason: The review which I announced on 21st March is still in progress, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on its outcome. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as he is reviewing nuclear weapons expenditure it would be fair and consistent for him to make strong representations to the French, to oppose their tests in the atmosphere and to oppose tests whether they be British, French, Chinese or Russian? Further, does he accept that it would be desirable if he impressed upon his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment that it would be better for him to be consistent in his opposition to the detestable regime in South Africa?
    Mr. Mason: On my hon. Friend's first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already done so. On his second point, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment has said.
    Mr. Goodhart: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consult our allies on the terms of the defence review, will he consult the British people? Will he give a firm assurance that the review will he published before the General Election in view of the rumours that it will lead to a withdrawal from the Cyprus base? Will he say now that there will be no withdrawal of our forces from Cyprus? Surely even Her Majesty's Government must realise that to withdraw from the base now would lead to further instability.
    Mr. Mason: I do not know when the General Election will take place so I cannot state whether my White Paper will be before it or after it. All I can say is that the work on the White Paper is complex and is taking longer than I imagined. The question of Cyprus is subject to the review, but we have just seen how important a role our forces play in helping to maintain peace and stability on the island.
    Mr. Ford: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when he comes to recommend the defence cuts there are two matters to consider carefully in the balance? The first is the effect of the cuts upon civilians employed in Britain and the second is the political question of how far the British people are prepared to see Britain's defence posture weakened.
    Mr. Mason: When anybody is considering cuts in defence expenditure I always expect that there will be two strongly expounded points of view. My hon. Friend represents one such point of view. I shall take on board what he says about the review because naturally employment considerations are playing a part in the review. That is one reason for the review being slowed down.
    Mr. Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? Is it not true that the internal papers are now all prepared? Is he not considering what he feels should be done about them? Will he be specific about when he will start consulting our allies and, simultaneous with that, when he will consult the House?
    Mr. Mason: I should like to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that internal papers are already prepared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are they?"] The ramifications of the documents that are

    457
    before me are so complex and wide-ranging that it will take some time before Ministers will be able to peruse them and to consider the options that are available. I cannot be more honest and frank than that.
    Mr. Evans: When my right hon. Friend announces the outcome of his review, will he continue to have regard to Britain's balance of payments? Will he continue to realise that other countries in Europe with which we are associated have an embarrassing balance of payments surplus? Does he realise that it would be better if the people who are now engaged in defending this island were producing exports rather than remaining a charge on the Exchequer?
    Mr. Mason: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but it does not necessarily follow that if there were major cuts in defence expenditure those who were declared unemployed or redundant would immediately be able to go into export based industries where we badly require them. That is one of the problems of the review.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now had five months to make a review of defence expenditure, the review being based upon a Labour Party pledge to make substantial cuts in expenditure? Does he accept that there has been total uncertainty in the Armed Services and in all the companies concerned? For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the reason for further delay is that Ministers need a lot more time to peruse the papers before them reeks of lethargy or of putting off the review until after the General Election.
    Mr. Mason: First, Ministers have not had the papers placed before them. This is a massive exercise. We are examining every commitment abroad from the Far East right through to NATO. We are also considering every capability of Her Majesty's Forces. Further, we have to consider to what extent there will be job redundancies and job prospects lost as a result of the review. The consequences in certain areas and upon certain firms have to be considered. It is right that the matter should be considered calmly and rationally. Further, it is right that it should take time.
    Mr. Goodhart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of most of the right hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Western Europe
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways he expects Great Britain's continued membership of the European Communities to affect Great Britain's defence situation, in particular in relation to Western Europe.
    Mr. Mason: The Treaty of Rome has no defence content and there is no discussion of defence matters in the framework of the European Communities. Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to European defence co-operation within the North Atlantic Alliance, and in particular to the work of the Eurogroup.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Atlantic Declaration which was signed last month by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, along with his colleagues from the North Atlantic Alliance, declares that the further progress towards unity that the members of the EEC are determined to make could be beneficial for the defence of the North Atlantic Alliance as a whole? Will he study the document and draw it to the attention of all his colleagues?
    Mr. Mason: No doubt all my hon. Friends who are following the negotiations within the EEC will have in mind the new document on the reformation of the Alliance and the transatlantic link.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sharing of the defence burden among the Western community is very unequal? Further, will he bear in mind that the £400 million a year that it costs us to keep British troops in Germany, three-quarters of which adds to our serious imbalance of payments, cannot be compared with Germany's great surplus and the benefit that German and not British manufacturers derive from the British troops?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is fully aware that one of our starting points for the review was the gross national product figures for Britain compared with the

    459
    corresponding figures for the Western European countries, especially France and Germany. When we take into account the NATO statistics and when we consider them in terms of defence expenditure, it is apparent that we are spending more than other countries. That is one reason for the review. I must advise my hon. Friend that the central front happens to be the front of our nation too. We have to pay the price if we are to maintain stability in that area.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the closer we get with our European partners in the community on defence matters as well as on economic and foreign policies, the better it will be for the defence of Europe? It is not only the central front which is important to this country but also the northern front. What is the Secretary of State doing to strengthen that front?
    Mr. Mason: I do not have to do any more at the moment to strengthen the northern front, but I will take into consideration what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he has played a part at Western European Union and the Council of Europe, and many of their papers, documents and presentations have been helpful to defence policy.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in our lifetime all these other countries of the EEC have owed a great debt of gratitude to the United Kingdom? Does he agree also that in this nuclear bomb-laden world the essential thing about all defence policy is that it must be assisted by intelligent foreign policy, because if foreign policy goes wrong and nuclear explosions take place there will be no more EEC or any other community but only dust? That must be the quintessence of all defence policy.
    Mr. Mason: I agree that defence policy follows foreign policy. In our foriegn policy we have been trying to stress internationally that more countries should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty—the "NPT club". I am sorry that some have refused to do so and have recently exploded nuclear devices in the atmosphere. This has prompted much international concern.
    Mr. Marten: If it is the fact that defence policy follows foreign policy, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the rather weak attitude of the EEC during
    460
    the Yom Kippur war? Did not that attitude nearly disrupt NATO at the time? Therefore, is not the Common Market slightly disruptive of peace? Should we not look at this matter through the eyes of NATO and not have anything to do with the Common Market?
    Mr. Mason: That was a rather odd and circuitous route from the Yom Kippur war back to the Common Market. I thought that the strangest aspect of that period was the misunderstanding which took place between the United States and NATO.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the operations in Northern Ireland
    Mr. Mason: Throughout Northern Ireland the Army is helping the RUC to maintain order and to bring men of violence to justice.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: With regard to Cyprus and other vital British commitments, may not the defence review have to result in National Service unless there is some expedited progress in Northern Ireland, where the emergency has gone on for a long time? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues in the Cabinet the need, in view of the failure of the Irish Republic to extradite terrorists, to seal the border? Should not serious thought be given to improving the security situation by military and political means?
    Mr. Mason: I shall not rise to the bait and the spectre of National Service. I do not think that that is necessary. Despite the Cyprus requirements, we have managed to maintain 15,000 men in Northern Ireland. Although it is a strain on Her Majesty's Forces we are able to do it.
    If the hon. Gentleman doubts whether our security forces are managing in Northern Ireland, I will tell him that since the beginning of this year 786 persons have been arrested and charged with terrorist offences, and 881 weapons, 106,844 rounds of ammunition and 33,496 lb. of explosive have been seized. Goodness knows what Northern Ireland would have been like if all that had been let loose as well.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the charge which is frequently made that the Special Air Service is operating in Northern Ireland? Secondly, with regard to the admission by the Army that the IRA has been listening in to Army telephone calls, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so-called innocent calls were made with a scrambling device? Is this likely to occur again?
    Mr. Mason: No units of the SAS are operating in Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no secure speech on telephones. The arrest of Brendan Hughes proved that the Provisionals' tapping of telephones was not very successful.

    Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has now taken to protect oil and gas installations in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Judd: Protection from external attack forms part of national and NATO defence planning. As regards peace time, I refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 1st July—[Vol. 876, c. 36.]—to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) in which I explained that the precise rôle of the Armed Services would depend on the circumstances. Naturally, the Ministry of Defence is constantly seeking ways to ensure that the response of the Armed Services to any contingency is made with the greatest possible effect.
    Mr. Walker: Who is now responsible for co-ordinating all the various organisations involved with such defence? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that never again will a Soviet spy ship be able to go alongside one of our oil rigs and take whatever pictures it wants?
    Mr. Judd: There is a later Question about that matter. The installations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in his Question are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The responsibility for them thus rests with the same authorities as would be responsible on land, including owners, the police, other civil authorities and the Armed Forces. We therefore regard the close co-ordination of the plans of various Government
    462
    Departments as essential, and the Government take collective responsibility for it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recall that security at 27 of the 29 British oil rigs is at present in the doubtless capable hands of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen? Can my right hon. Friend enlarge on the undertaking, given on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill yesterday, that the Government will look into this whole question?
    Mr. Judd: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the Chief Constable of Aberdeen, whose hands are certainly capable. I underline the seriousness with which the Government treat this subject by drawing attention to the very successful seminar, held under Ministry of Defence auspices and attended by hon. Members from both sides of the House, amongst others with specialist responsibilities, on 23rd July. At the seminar the Government said that we would not relax our efforts to improve all the time the co-ordination of Government policy as a whole.
    Mr. Sproat: What pressure is the hon. Gentleman bringing on the oil companies to increase their own security of rigs and platforms?
    Mr. Judd: This is an important aspect of our overall policy. We are in constant close touch and liaison with the oil companies. We hope that they will be able to play a full part, particularly in aspects of design, in contributing towards effective defence.
    Mr. Douglas Henderson: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that his remarks about the Chief Constable of Aberdeen will be warmly received in the North-East of Scotland and in Scotland generally because these rigs lie under the jurisdiction of Scots law? What consultation is the hon. Gentleman having with the Norwegian Government on this matter, since they must have similar problems?
    Mr. Judd: Naturally we consult our allies about the whole policy of the defence of North Sea installations. This is essentially an international matter and one which cannot be handled simply on a national basis.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we had a Scottish

    463
    navy, as proposed by the Scottish National Party, all these problems would be solved?
    Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us the strength of the navy of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen. Is he aware that many of us who attended that very interesting seminar came away with the feeling that the one thing lacking was co-ordination? It is not good enough to say that the Government as a whole are co-ordinating. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Government to consider appointing a person of substantial authority to co-ordinate these activities?
    Mr. Judd: When we became the Government earlier this year, one of the problems which deeply concerned us was the need to improve co-ordination. We have since taken steps to improve co-ordination. We see it as a collective Government responsibility, and Ministers in the various Departments concerned share that responsibility as a front line as part of their general policy.

    Iran (Exhibition)
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what results have been obtained from the recent exhibition sponsored by Her Majesty's Government in Iran of British defence material.
    Mr. William Rodgers: It is too early to measure results in terms of contracts actually achieved, but some of the exhibitors have been asked to supply quotations.
    Mr. Warren: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that Iran will be allowed to purchase that for which it contracts from this Government, and will he ensure that Iran does not suffer the current fate of the Indian Government, which after many years of bargaining with the British Government for the supply of Jaguar aircraft to India has found that the British Government are refusing to support the loan which would enable the exports to be made?
    Mr. Rodgers: Without accepting the analogy that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I can give the assurance he seeks.

    Dockyards
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce his plans for the future of the Royal Naval Dockyards.
    Mr. Judd: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 21st May 1974—[Vol. 874, cc. 116–7.]. The naval dockyards will continue to fulfil their rôle of supporting the Fleet.
    Miss Fookes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, as a Member representing a dockyard constituency, that he is telling us nothing and that we have now waited five months but still know nothing about the future of the dockyards?
    Mr. Judd: I would have thought that the hon. Lady, with her intimate knowledge of the dockyards and their problems, together with her hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), would recognise that at the moment the dockyards have a full load of naval work which stretches into the future. We on this side of the House have every confidence in the ability of the labour force in the dockyards to continue serving the interests of the Navy effectively into the future and we believe that they will take on any other national priority which may be appropriate from time to time.
    Mr. Hooley: Has my hon. Friend made progress in his calculations of how far the naval dockyards might in future assist in the construction of the necessary equipment to exploit North Sea oil, of which the Navy will be the defender.
    Mr. Judd: I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing constructive interest in this matter. I can assure him that specific interdepartmental machinery is now established to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether there are to be defence cuts within the region of £1,000 million, or even hundreds of millions of pounds? Will he say whether in the light of such cuts closure of a dockyard would be likely? Will he turn his mind to this matter and indicate whether what I say is the case and say on which dockyard he is focusing?
    Mr. Judd: I know of no plans to cut defence by £1,000 million. As we have repeatedly told the House, we do not share the doubts and the misgivings of some Opposition Members about the capabilities of the labour force in our dockyards. We believe that the skilled men in the dockyards, supported by unskilled labourers with an established

    465
    reputation, will serve the national economy on a whole range of important priorities in the future should the need arise.

    Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Wigginasked the Secretary of State for Defence what alternatives to multi-role combat aircraft exist in the different roles which are planned for the aircraft by the RAF; and what is their cost.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): No single aircraft exists or is in prospect which is a practicable alternative to the MRCA.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal or even the hint of a proposal to cut the numbers of aircraft that we might be taking under this collaborative venture would seriously damage our reputation as collaborators in international arms ventures at a time when the Secretary of State has rightly reiterated the virtues of such agreements?
    Mr. John: We have in consultation with our allies determined a certain number of aircraft that we will take. Any numbers of aircraft must be subject to the comprehensive defence review which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but certainly we are well aware of the importance of this collaborative venture.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: What is the present state of the MRCA project? Is my hon. Friend aware that a group of Labour Members flew to Germany in mid-May to be shown what was clearly billed as the golden plane of the Western world but that we have since heard only reports of engine problems and soaring costs? Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny those reports?
    Mr. John: There has been a manufacturing rather than a design fault of a minor nature with the engine, but I am confident that the aircraft will now make its first flight shortly.
    Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to deny the allegation made by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that these aircraft will now cost £9 million each?
    Mr. John: There are a number of different conventions on how to cost aeroplanes, but on the convention used in Britain I can say, as I said in the House in May, that such a figure is wildly exaggerated.

    Harrier Aircraft
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what interest has been shown by what other countries in the advanced Harrier; and if he will take steps to ensure that it is produced in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John: The United States have shown particular interest in the advanced Harrier and we are engaged with them in joint feasibility studies. No firm decision on the development and production of the aircraft has yet been taken by either Government.
    Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman seek to ensure that when the decision is taken a reasonable proportion of the production will take place in this country, thus ensuring, particularly for firms in my constituency, the retention of skilled design teams which have been so painstakingly built up?
    Mr. John: The retention of work will depend on the decisions that are finally taken. I know that Hawker Siddeley and Rolls-Royce have played full parts in the joint studies and that they have full commercial agreements with their American counterparts, which should ensure what the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend comment on the report by Air Commodore Donaldson that Harriers will be based on oil rigs?
    Mr. John: I have difficulty in speculating on the truth of Air Commodore Donaldson's reports. This is an entirely different Question from the one dealing with the advanced Harrier, which is in an entirely different time scale.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the introduction of the naval Harrier and the export orders that such a decision would produce.
    Mr. Judd: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 21st May

    467
    —[Vol. 874, col. 160]. We remain determined to take a decision as soon as possible within the context of the Defence Review.
    Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a grave danger that this country will lose the advantage it gained through producing the most technically-advanced aircraft in the world unless we order it for the Royal Navy very quickly? Has he estimated the total gain accruing to this country in export orders for this aircraft if we produce it for our Navy?
    Mr. Judd: We recognise the value of the maritime V/STOL aircraft. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current review. Naturally the Navy is keen to have the maritime Harrier and this professional view will be taken fully into account in the context of the wider considerations which must form part of the Defence Review. In the context of that review, sales prospects will also receive attention.
    Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House and to the workers at Hawker Siddeley that before the Defence Review reaches fruition there will be no laying off of men employed on Harrier production because the firm is short of contracts?
    Mr. Judd: In assessing the effect on Hawker Siddeley I should like to emphasise that the design team is being kept together and that design work is at present continuing.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order I would much prefer that he raises it at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This concerns the Questions we have just dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I know that Prime Minister's Questions are important. Nevertheless, we have got through only about 19 of the Questions on the Order Paper tabled for the Secretary of State for Defence. Is this not an absolutely incredible performance? Can you not protect the rights of back benchers so that we can go a little faster?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman rose many times to try to ask supplementary questions.

    Cyprus
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the deployment of British forces in Cyprus; and whether he will make a statement.
    Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmidasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security of the Cyprus base.
    Mr. Mason: The resident garrison in Cyprus was reinforced by two Royal Marine Commandos on Sunday 21st July followed by armoured car squadrons and an infantry battalion together with support personnel over the next few days. A number of Her Majesty's ships also deployed to the area. The level of forces required to ensure the security of the Cyprus base is being kept under review. The reinforcement was carried out with great efficiency and reflects much credit on the officers and men concerned in the planning and execution of the operation.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Following on the tribute to the work of the three Services for evacuating and looking after tourists and other British subjects, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many people now remain to be moved home and whether consideration has been given to the use of a Services cable communication to enable inquiries to be made from this country by people who are still worried about relatives and friends remaining in Cyprus?
    Mr. Mason: I will consider the point about cable communication which until now has not been drawn to my attention. With regard to evacuation, we have already brought home 8,000 people, consisting of British residents and tourists of 49 different nations as well as some Service dependants. We have now started to evacuate about 1,200 dependants of Servicemen who should be living outside the sovereign base areas, bringing them home if their Service husbands are within three months of the end of their tours. That should satisfy the situation for the time being.
    Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer.

    469
    One of the reinforcements which went out was an armoured car squadron from my own regiment. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement today in The Times that the United Nations force is to be reintroduced in the future and, if so, what proportion of the reinforcement will be British?
    Mr. Mason: A request was received a few days ago from the United Nations Secretary General for the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus to be increased. Her Majesty's Government responded quickly to the request and immediately released 600 men, including Coldstream Guards and 50 Ferret cars, which means that our United Nations contingent is about 1,350 strong and is the biggest unit in the peace-keeping rôle in Cyprus.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the allegation made by a constituent of mine who was brought home from Cyprus that we were very slow off the mark? Will he indicate some of the difficulties which created this situation?
    Mr. Mason: I thought we were cautious and safe. We had to make a calculation about when would be the right time for United Kingdom troops to move through Larnaka, Limassol, Famagusta and Kyrenia to bring in British residents as well as foreign tourists. If we had gone in prematurely it might have given an indication that we were possibly working in alliance with the Turks and many people might have been killed escaping to the sovereign base areas. I think that we took a calculated risk and were cautious, and in the end it proved to be safe and sure. There has been only one casualty involving the United Nations force and a small child of 10 who was killed in crossfire.
    Mr. Goodhart: While joining in the tributes to the magnificent work done by our Services in carrying out the evacuation of civilians, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what compensation will he paid to those Service families whose homes have been looted following their withdrawal to the sovereign base areas?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot give a figure but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already broadcast on the forces network
    470
    to Cyprus to give assurances of that kind to those of our Service men and their dependants who might have been adversely affected.
    Mr. Bagier: What advice is my right hon. Friend giving to tour operators who are still reported to be taking holidaymakers out to the island?
    Mr. Mason: That is not within my province. As my hon. Friend will know, the Foreign Office has been giving advice to the Association of British Travel Agents. Most of its members have been heeding that advice.
    Mr. Sproat: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention, assuming that there are no further outbreaks of fighting on the island, to allow the TAVR units which are to hold their annual camp there next month to go ahead, in particular the 4th Volunteer Battalion, Royal Green Jackets?
    Mr. Mason: On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman might be wanting to go with them? It will depend entirely on the situation at the time. He must know that there was a TAVR unit on camp in Cyprus during the conflict which had to be brought back to the sovereign base area.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Conservative side of the House would very much like to convey our congratulations and thanks to all three Armed Services for the remarkable skill which they displayed in what was a very tricky operation? Secondly, is he aware that we would like to express our hope that the remarks he made in reply to an earlier Question mean that at least this sad episode has resulted in him realising the importance of Cyprus as a base?
    Mr. Mason: We have always realised the importance of Cyprus, and who knows to what extent that will come through in the defence review? I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said in praise of the troops. This evacuation is unparalleled in peace time. Great credit is due to all British forces who have been concerned, plus all three Services active in the home base who were supplying and sending out aircraft 24 hours a day—sending out not only troops but supplies and so on, and then bringing back all the

    471
    8,000 people, together with foreign nationals from 49 different countries, including Russia and Germany, who led their nations to believe that they got their people out first. It has been a remarkable operation and credit is due to all concerned.

    Royal Irish Rangers
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence where the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Rangers has served since 1969.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Since 1969, the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Rangers has been stationed at Catterick and in BAOR. During this period it has spent six months on an unaccompanied tour in Cyprus as part of the United Nations forces.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is it not a little exceptional that this regiment has never been allowed to return to its home base in Northern Ireland or to fulfil duties in Northern Ireland? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that its composition rather mirrors the community in Northern Ireland and that it might be of extremely effective assistant to the British Army out there?
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman's point, though certainly worth serious consideration, raises difficult issues. As he will know, not since 1933 have any Irish regiments been stationed in Northern Ireland, except for training or ceremonial duties.

    PENSIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 15th July in London on pensions.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made in London on 15th July on pensions.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I did so on 18th July, Sir.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government's pledge to increase pensions to £10 and
    472
    £16 will not go unheeded by the electorate when it is called upon? Does he agree that it is the trade unions, both Left and Right, which campaigned for this increase when more faltering voices were not heard? Will he further give an assurance that the next Labour Government will phase out supplementary benefits by giving further increases to old-age pensioners, and will also phase out supplementary benefits whether from this side of the Channel or the other?
    The Prime Minister: The action of the Government in raising pensions was widely regarded in the country as a necessary act of social justice. It is a fact that some leading trade unionists pressed for this as the first priority to be carried out and went to great lengths to explain to their members at work that they should make any necessary sacrifices for the benefit of these pensioners. On his other point, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by placing firms' pensions schemes in limbo, as occurred when the Government refused to carry on the plans made by the previous Government, he is causing uncertainty and unhappiness, and possibly real hardship? Will he put something firm in place of what was a very good arrangement?
    The Prime Minister: We do not agree that it was a good or fair arrangement. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to tell him that he will soon be seeing the proposals on superannuation, which my right hon. Friend will be issuing in the near future.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that since he made that speech to Age Concern the Government have implemented the largest-ever increase in pensions? Is he aware that this is one of the things that annoy Conservative Members? Is he further aware that what was so encouraging in that speech was the obvious desire of the British Labour movement to achieve a situation in which we shall be able to link pensions to average earnings so that, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said, true help may be given to our old-age pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: In thanking my hon. Friend for his remarks, I reaffirm the commitment made about linking future increases in pensions to the average level of earnings.
    Sir G. Howe: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, in the speech to which he has referred, he found it necessary to make an entirely misleading comparison between the increases in the State basic pension and the prospective increases which would have accrued under the Conservative Government scheme for a second pension? Was it perhaps because he has a sense of guilt at the repeated failure of successive Labour Governments under his leadership to bring into operation any scheme for a second occupational pension?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The calculation which I gave on what the comparison would be was completely correct. As for a sense of guilt, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his Front Bench merry-go-round, has no direct responsibility for the State reserve scheme, he certainly had collective responsibility for it, and I am sure that even he will agree, when my right hon. Friend's scheme is published, that it is a much fairer scheme.

    NEWSPAPERS (ARCHIVES)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will ask the Royal Commission on the Press to examine ways by which the archives of newspapers which cease publication may be preserved.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The larger public libraries already have extensive files of newspapers and the libraries of statutory deposit, led by the British Library, will continue to maintain comprehensive collections, including those of newspapers which have ceased publication.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say where the archives of newspapers which have gone into liquidation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hansard."]—such as the Daily Herald, News Chronicle, Reynolds News and the Glasgow
    474
    Forward, which are extremely valuable archives, are now and what will be done to preserve future archives if other newspapers go into liquidation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the British Library receives, under the Copyright Acts as a right, copies of all these papers and it maintains the collection which is available for reference at Colindale. It must be for the British Library Board to consider whether to develop this service. Some newspapers have transferred their archives, for example to universities, without going out of production. However, if my hon. Friend will let me know the particular cases he has in mind, I will try to get the answer. I do not know the answer in relation to the newspapers he has mentioned.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When the information is made available, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Royal Commission is made aware that the bulk of newspapers which have gone out of business have done so as a result of trade union restrictions and over-manning?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was recently an extremely constructive debate in the House on all the problems of the Press, including the cost of production and manning arrangments, and a much wider series of subjects was discussed, I thought in a fairly united spirit, by the House a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Ashley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gagging writ is a device which can seriously interfere with the freedom of the Press? As the Phillimore Committee is shortly to report on this device, will he ensure that the Royal Commission on the Press is able to take account of the Phillimore Committee's findings?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recall that this matter and others were covered in the recent debate on the Press and that the whole House was concerned to ascertain whether further measures could be introduced to ensure greater Press freedom of comment while preserving a reasonable degree of privacy for the individual.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental study of the consequences for Great Britain's economy of a decision to withdraw from the EEC.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friends have reported to the House on the renegotiations. All relevant information for all contingencies is always available to all Governments.
    Mr. Blaker: Has such a study already been made? Will the Prime Minister confirm that all members of the Cabinet support the Foreign Secretary in his approach to the negotiations, which is to approach them in good faith in the hope of a successful conclusion? Would not such a study prove to all members of the Government that the Foreign Secretary deserves support in his wish for this country to stay in the Community?
    The Prime Minister: No special study has been made. My right hon. Friend has been negotiating in Brussels on the basis of the agreed view of the whole Cabinet—that was the mandate he was given—and I should have thought, though I have not had much evidence of this, that he probably receives a certain degree of support from Opposition Members for trying to put right the terms which were so badly negotiated two years ago.
    Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend note that there is no need for an interdepartmental study of the consequences of our not withdrawing from the Community because they are visible to all of us?
    The Prime Minister: That is a view which my right hon. Friend may put forward, but some of my right hon. Friends, not least the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been trying to put right, and with considerable success, some of the matters which had been badly negotiated.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we accept that the Foreign Secretary is negotiating in good faith, there was considerable surprise that what had clearly been indicated to be the Foreign Office view on the common
    476
    energy policy, which had also been transmitted to our colleagues, was directly reversed when the Secretary of State for Trade got round the conference table? Would it not be better if the Foreign Secretary took the greater share, although admittedly he was on Cypriot business in Geneva? However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of behaviour does not enhance our reputation in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have been there but for his commitments in Geneva.
    Mr. Mikardo: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to double the regional employment premium and the proposals of the Secretary of State for Industry to assist in keeping going factories which might otherwise shut are being held up by examination in the European Commission, will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the effects of our withdrawing from the Community will be that Her Majesty's Government and Parliament will be able to make their own decisions without restriction by a coven of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: There is no reason to suppose that the decisions of Her Majesty's Government referred to by my hon. Friend will be or can be held up by the Commission or anyone else in Brussels. If there were any attempt to do that, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, including those on REP, with such enthusiasm in the vote last Wednesday evening would be the first to join in ensuring that that did not happen.
    Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister answer the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)? It is well known that what happened on the energy policy was that agreement was reached between all member countries of the Community, including the United Kingdom. It was reached by the officials dealing with this matter on the instructions of the British Government and it was overthrown entirely on the personal whim of the Secretary of State for Trade. Will the Prime Minister

    477
    account for this, because it has established in the Community a complete mistrust of the faith of the British Government?
    The Prime Minister: Before I reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I hope I shall not be too far out of order in referring to the incident involving him this morning, which I think all of us will agree was totally deplorable. The issues involved are far too important to be dealt with by hooliganism. They should be dealt with by free and democratic debate.
    I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his question. We have taken the view on energy that, apart from national action which should be taken, we need to tackle—the right hon. Gentleman's Government took this view—the world's energy problem on a much broader basis than the Nine. We shall work with the Nine but, just as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, we also make clear that there can be no question of a commitment to share North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas with the Nine.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks. I was delighted that the Minister for Sport was present at the occasion, and I am grateful to the Leader of the Liberal Party for the apology which he has sent me.
    The Prime Minister:: So much for a little coalition.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Nigel Lawsonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy at Aberystwyth on 13th July.
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies at Aberystwyth on 13th July.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 19th July to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).
    Mr. Lawson: In that speech the Prime Minister stressed the need for a united country working together. Does he agree
    478
    with the Home Secretary that national unity will not be achieved on the basis, favoured by the Labour Left, of "ignoring middle opinion and telling everyone who does not agree with you to go to hell"? In the light of this, will the Prime Minister, in his customary unequivocal manner, tell the House whether he approves or disapproves of his right hon. Friend's speech at Haverfordwest?
    The Prime Minister: In my customary unequivocal manner I remind the hon. Gentleman that he was first elected to this Parliament defending not a Britain that was working unitedly but a Britain on a three-day week. As to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman—
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes or No?
    The Prime Minister: There are three parts to the supplementary question, and I shall answer the second before the third, as is customary in the House. In so far as the hon. Gentleman referred to matters which he thought were inimical to united working, many things have happened in the last week or two in the private sector that he supports which are extremely inimical to a united country.
    In reply to the third part of the supplementary question, while I do not take exception to any words used in that speech I feel that it is part of the whole truth, and I shall be dealing with this in extenso in a speech in this building this evening. [Interruption.] I shall be delighted to arrange for tickets of entry for hon. Gentlemen when they are willing to allow my hon. Friends to address such meetings as the 1922 Committee meeting last Thursday. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech after it has been made.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes ill from an Opposition Member to lecture us on policy when in the last three years we have had a Government whose policy existed almost totally of telling many sections of the population to go to hell? Does not my right hon. Friend think that it also comes ill from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who had the dubious distinction of being one of the 23 Conservative Members who repudiated their cowardly leadership by voting last week against a cut in VAT?
    The Prime Minister: We do not need a literal transcriptions of what Conservative right hon. Gentleman said in those three years to know that their policies were divisive, that they failed and that they now have no policy at all.
    Mr. Gardiner: As the Prime Minister considers the Home Secretary's speech to have covered only part of the whole truth, will he kindly tell the House what he considers the other part to be?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman the full text of what I shall say tonight. It would delay the House for a long time if I were to read out the speech now. The hon. Gentleman can have the pleasure of reading that speech. He has been in the House only a short time, and even Reigate will prove not to be safe with such a Tory candidate.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that backward employers are extremely reluctant to treat their work-people as human beings, and that the time for worker representation in the higher levels of management in industry is long overdue? Is not that recognised in Labour Party policy, and does not my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no national unity until those facts are realised?
    The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is referring to proposals for worker participation on boards, that policy is not confined to the Labour Party. It is the policy of several countries in Europe and, indeed, of the European Economic Community. My hon. Friend can feel satisfied that he has widespread support for what he has just said. In reply to the early part of the supplementary question, if my hon. Friend has any particular cases which he would like investigated perhaps he will send details of them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the Prime Minister will reflect that remarks such as "even Reigate" are well up to his normal standard and, before he dwells too long on the future in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), which I am sure will be a long one, think about his own past and the fact that during the time when he wielded enormous influence as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition this country's
    480
    standing in the world and its standards deteriorated.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I did not even refer to Yeovil. The deterioration of standards—economic, social and many others—was greeted by the results of the General Election this year. In the spirit of the eve-of-recess bonhomie which inspires the whole House, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman in relation to his reference to standards that the standard of the Conservative Front Bench would be better if he were still there.

    INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION (ACCOMMODATION)
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether this point of order comes within your purview, Mr. Speaker, or that of the Leader of the House.
    You, Sir, are here to protect the interests of all Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, and particularly back benchers. There are various organisations which have accommodation in the House and hold meetings here, and I understand that the matter is under your control.
    Many hon. Members are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which you are one of the Honorary Vice-Presidents. For, I think, a hundred years the IPU has occupied office accommodation in the House, from which it has now been kicked out by the other place. What can we as elected Members of Parliament do to protect our rights and so see that the other place does not kick out our appointed organisations from office accommodation which they want to keep? I ask you to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and to maintain the status quo until the House has an opportunity of discussing the subject.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter came to my notice this morning. In the last quarter of an hour I have met the Chairman and Secretary of the IPU and promised to look urgently into the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: In regard to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for

    481
    Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), I would inform the hon. Gentleman that I am concerned about these matters and knew of them. The extent to which I have any jurisdiction over accommodation in the other place is a matter of doubt, but it is a matter that is being considered by me as well as by the Leader of the House.

    TRIUMPH MOTOR CYCLES, MERIDEN
    Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have come to your notice that the Secretary of State for Industry recently announced in a Written Answer that Government aid to the extent of £4·95 million would be given to the Meriden Co-operative. The figure of £4·95 million is just below the £5 million for which the Government must seek the approval of the House.
    The reason why I raise this matter, as it was discussed yesterday and as the House will be rising tomorrow, is that an announcement appeared in the newspaper this morning that a further £1·1 million subsidy will be required by Norton-Villiers to enable the scheme to go forward. That clearly indicates that the total package is well in excess of the £5 million for which parliamentary approval is required. I ask whether there has been any communication with you, Mr. Speaker, to enable the matter to be discussed before we rise?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: May I raise a new point of order, Mr. Speaker? It relates to a manœuvre which is being used to get round the proper usage of Parliament in looking after taxpayers' money. If this matter is not the responsibility of the Chair, whose responsibility is it? On the evidence that we have just heard, it is palpably a manœuvre aimed at getting round the proper rules of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair to judge how the Government or Opposition conduct their business. They must fight it out between them. It is not a matter for the Chair to rule on these matters. So far as I know, nothing has happened contrary to the Standing Orders of the House.
    Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We fully accept that it is not a matter for the Chair, but, since this matter has been drawn to the attention of the House, and, in particular, to the Leader of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement tomorrow before we begin the Adjournment debate so that the House may be apprised of the full situation?
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): As the position stands at the moment, the amount does not exceed £5 million, and, therefore, under legislation passed by the Conservative Government it does not need to come to the House. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that if there is any question of its going up to £5 million or exceeding it, certainly it will come to the House of Commons.
    Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House take up the point mentioned by my Friend, namely, that this is being done in two jumps and that the total will be over £5 million? Does not that in itself mean that the matter should come before the House?
    Mr. Short: The only amount of money to which the Government have agreed is below £5 million. Therefore, it does not need to come to the House of Commons under legislation passed by the Conservative Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheating!"] If the Government make more money available which will take the figure over £5 million, it will come to Parliament; otherwise it cannot be made available.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Short—statement.

GOVERNMENT WORK (DISPERSAL)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Hardman Report on the dispersal of Government work from London.

483
The report recommended the dispersal of some 31,000 posts. Over one-third of these would have stayed in the South-East Region; little more than half would have gone to assisted areas. The Government regard such a distribution as unacceptable, because it undervalues the importance of the opportunities for administrative work that dispersal can provide where they are most needed. We have deferred decisions on two of Sir Henry Hardman's proposals owing mainly to organisational changes since we came to office, but in reaching decisions on the remainder we have tried as far as possible to provide new office employment in places where it will do most good. I am circulating full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the main features are as follows:
Some 7,000 posts from the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development will go to Glasgow. A similar number from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments will go to Cardiff and Newport. Some 4,500 posts will go to the North-West Region, the bulk of them to Merseyside, including elements of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Home Office. The headquarters of the Property Services Agency, some 3,000 posts, will go to Teesside, while the Laboratory of the Government Chemist will move to West Cumberland and 500 posts from the Department of Health and Social Security will join its units already in Newcastle. The number of posts to go to places in the South-East Region will fall from the 12,000 recommended in the report to 850.
The proposals on which we shall take decisions later concern the Board of Inland Revenue and the Department of Employment—the Manpower Services Commission and the proposed Health and Safety Commission. In the former case, it has been necessary to review Sir Henry Hardman's recommendations in the light of proposed changes in capital taxation, but it is expected that the resulting disposition of Inland Revenue work will benefit the assisted areas and will include the relocation of a substantial number of London posts. In the latter case, the Government wish to consult the new commissions before taking a final view on the siting of their headquarters.
The programme is the biggest dispersal exercise undertaken in peace time and
484
has major implications for staff as individuals and for local authorities. The Government wish to pay particular attention to the welfare of staff. I am glad to take this opportunity of reaffirming that there will be no redundancies among non-mobile staff in London as a result of the dispersal and that the Government, so far as possible, will select staff to fill dispersed posts on a voluntary basis. I would also add that improved transfer terms have already been agreed. Before reaching decisions, the Government had consultations with national and departmental Staff Sides. The Government recognise that, while the decisions will in general be welcome to staff serving in headquarters offices already outside London and to others, not all the moves will at once commend themselves to the staff affected in London, many of whom are not yet convinced that all the moves can be achieved without undue hardship to individuals or loss of operational efficiency. The Government believe, however, that the programme is manageable and that the problems can be overcome. They will now make it their business to do everything possible, in consultation with staff through the Whitley Council machinery, to ensure that this is the case.
I would emphasise that dispersal will not take place all at once: the programme will be carefully phased and will be spread over a period of up to 10 years. The Government will now get in touch with the local authorities concerned to discuss timetabling and related matters.
The distribution I have outlined improves considerably on that recommended by the Hardman Report. Nearly 90 per cent. of the dispersed posts will be located in assisted areas. Inevitably, it has not proved possible to provide work for all the places which have offered to receive it. The Government expect to reap major benefits in terms of better recruitment than in London, improved working conditions for staff and a reduction of the cost of their office estate. Such is the importance of these benefits, and of the creation of new employment in the assisted areas, that, although the present programme is a major new contribution to dispersal policy, the Government will continue to look for further opportunities to disperse headquarters work from London and, wherever possible, to site

485
in the assisted areas such new organisations as may from time to time be established. Opportunities may thus arise to place work in parts of the country which have argued for dispersal in the new programme. The Government are particularly anxious that such places should understand that their arguments have been considered and that this announcement does not mean the end of an active dispersal policy.
In conclusion, I confirm the siting of a large administrative centre in Washington New Town. Subject to Parliament approving the scheme, we shall establish there the headquarters of the Family Endowment Scheme. Including this work, for which a precise total cannot yet be given, and the deferred decisions mentioned above, the programme on which we are now embarking will result in the location of more than 31,000 jobs outside London, the great bulk of them in the assisted areas. This will do much to widen the career opportunities open to qualified boys and girls in some of our biggest cities and will thus go some way towards redressing the imbalance between the South-East and other parts of the country. It is a practical expression of our determination to achieve a more equitable distribution of job opportunities throughout the country and I am sure that it will commend itself to the House.
Mr. Prior: Is the Leader of the House aware that we warmly welcome dispersal of jobs from London, particularly because it is the fruitful outcome of the Hardman Committee, which was set up by a Conservative Government in 1971, and is the second such dispersal set on foot by a Conservative Government when in office? Could the right hon. Gentleman be more precise in his figures in respect of the Defence Ministry dispersal to Glasgow, in view of the Minister's footnote at the bottom of the page to the effect that this will depend on the defence review which is not yet completed? May I ask why this process will take 10 years? Is that not a very long time indeed to carry out what in any business activity would have to be carried out a great deal more quickly? Will he set up a special transfer unit in London to deal with civil servants who do not want to move and for whom a transfer in London will have to be arranged? Furthermore, will he
486
undertake to ensure that nobody will be forced to move unless he wants to go?
Mr. Short: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first point, this is taking account of the defence review. We propose to send about 6,000 posts from the Ministry of Defence to Glasgow, and the other 1,000 in Glasgow are from the Ministry of Overseas Development.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the previous Government in January of this year negotiated new transfer terms with the unions—if I may say so, extremely generous ones—and these will be operated.
As for redundancies, I have given an undertaking—and I have reaffirmed it—that among non-mobile staff there will be no redundancies. As far as humanly possible, we shall avoid redundancies among mobile staff.
Mr. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for at long last recognising the need to send a sizeable number of civil servants to Teesside. Will my right hon. Friend assure the Property Services Agency's employees that a warm and friendly welcome awaits them? In view of the amount of land available on Teesside and in view of our present economic difficulties and the high costs of defence, can my right hon. Friend say why it was decided to go to a great city instead of using that land?
Mr. Short: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said. There will be a very large number of civil servants on Teesside, in Darlington, in Durham and in Newcastle. The presence of those civil servants will create career prospects for civil servants in the North-East which will be much better than ever before.
My right hon. Friend asks about accommodation. This will be discussed with local authorities. In some cases, accommodation will have to be built. In others, accommodation will be available for letting in the area. But this matter has now to be looked at.
Mr. David Steel: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the principle of dispersal will be welcomed warmly from the Liberal benches? Can he say how many jobs will be in the top decision-making bracket, because we regard that as having some importance? When he

487
talks of sending 7,000 posts to Glasgow, does that mean the city alone? Is not there a case for dispersal to Scotland generally? Finally, as the announcement about the Oil Development Corporation came after the publication of the Hardman Report, can he say how many jobs there will be in respect of that corporation and where they will be?
Mr. Short: The Glasgow jobs will be in the Glasgow area but not all of them in the city.
As for the Oil Development Corporation, I cannot say how many jobs this will involve.
As for top jobs, in the Departments to be dispersed there is a high policy-making content. There will be many more too jobs dispersed this time than ever before.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in obvious difficulty. I cannot possibly call everyone. It might be much fairer if I did not call anyone. Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals will be widely welcomed in the reception areas, especially in those which are development areas? Can he say whether any of these dispersed units will be coming to North Wales—a most attractive area where there is a high level of unemployment and where a small unit would benefit the area out of all proportion to its size? If my right hon. Friend has no proposals of this kind, will he look at the matter again with a view to seeing that some unit comes to the area?
Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend made representations about North Wales, as did a number of other hon. Members. I am afraid that on this occasion it has not been possible to include North Wales. We have tried to avoid putting small numbers of civil servants in isolation in the country. The one exception is the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in West Cumberland, which is unique. With the object in mind of creating a better career structure for civil servants who are dispersed into the country we want large concentrations in a number of places. I am sure that my right hon.
488
Friend will welcome the jobs which we are creating in South Wales.
Sir William Elliott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his announcement about additional jobs for the North-East, especially for the future Washington New Town, will be welcome in the region? Does he appreciate that there will be considerable disappointment on Teesside over his announcement about the dispersal of defence posts since it is a heavily industrialised area and was hoping very much for dispersal there in order to create for younger people in the region, where there is still double the national average of unemployment, a better career structure?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little convoluted when he says that there will be disappointment on Teesside. We are creating 3,000 very good jobs there.
Dr. Mabon: While I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him about the two proposals which are postponed? How many jobs are involved in them? Does he agree that 10 years is a very long span and that it would be better if we could know how many of the jobs being dispersed—for example the 7,000 to the West of Scotland—are likely to materialise? Does he accept that the argument submitted on behalf of the West of Scotland by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the previous Government was for at least 10,000 jobs and not 7,000, which means that these two postponed projects are very important to us?
Mr. Short: At a very rough guess, the two postponed Departments would provide about 2,000 jobs. That is the nearest that I can get. It is somewhere near that.
As for my hon. Friend's second question, I cannot say what the date will be for the start of the dispersal to Glasgow. The whole process will be spread over 10 years. By the end of 10 years, it will be done. Some will start immediately, and some will go on throughout the decade. It is a complex operation, especially in the case of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Emery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why aid has been given to Scotland, Wales, the North-East and the

489
North-West when the Government have again refused to give aid to the assisted area of the South-West?
Mr. Short: This is the kind of area that we have to look at in the new dispersal proposals which we shall be beginning to consider. As I said before, we have tried this time to create large concentrations in provincial areas so that there are career prospects for civil servants in the provinces, instead of having small numbers here and there. I agree that we must now look at the South-West.
Mr. Wigley: Further to the very valid point made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are concerned about career prospects in areas like North Wales as well as about having civil servants in a few centres? It is difficult for many people to appreciate how career prospects will necessarily be better in a few centralised areas rather than in dispersed posts. Can the right hon. Gentleman look at this again in order to help such areas?
Mr. Short: Obviously, I cannot look at the Departments that I have announced. They are now firm decisions. But North Wales and the South-West are areas to be borne in mind. I remind the hon. Gentleman that parts of North Wales will benefit from the Merseyside dispersal.
Mr. Duffy: Why has my right hon. Friend not dispersed a single job, no matter how modest, to Yorkshire and Humberside? Is he not aware that it is an assisted area, that it has a general unemployment problem, and that in respect of office employment there is only one area, the East Midlands, which is worse off? Is he not aware also that it has 9 per cent. of the national population and only 1½ per cent. of headquarter civil servants, that it sends almost as many Labour Members to this House as Scotland, and that if it goes on being treated in this way the support of some may come under the same kind of strain?
Mr. Short: Further dispersals are coming along. My hon. Friend's points will be borne in mind. But I remind him that there are already very large numbers of civil servants in Yorkshire.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why has Peterborough been left off the location list? Is
490
the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the late Richard Crossman persuaded Peterborough, an ancient city, to accept the designation of a new town, he virtually promised that, to balance the upheaval that it would cause, this kind of work would be sent there? Why is it not on the list?
Mr. Short: The Government had to use a number of criteria, one of which I have already mentioned—the need to have large concentrations. The unemployment rate is another of the criteria. The power of absorption locally is another. A number of factors have to be taken into account. Peterborough simply did not qualify under those criteria.
Mr. Guy Barnett: I declare an interest as a consultant to the Society of Civil Servants. Whatever the attractions of many parts of the country, may I put the point of view of the civil servants by asking the Lord President whether he can give an absolute assurance that, so far as possible, dispersal will be voluntary? While recognising the special problems relating to professional and scientific civil servants, may I ask whether he will try to ensure that general service civil servants have a choice in this matter? Does he agree that the main object is to disperse jobs rather than people?
Mr. Short: I have already given an absolute assurance that there will be no redundancies among non-mobile civil servants. Dispersal will be purely voluntary. For the rest, as far as humanly possible dispersal will be undertaken by volunteers, but there may be odd cases here and there where that is not possible. However, we shall do that as far as possible.
Mr. Waddington: Will the Leader of the House recognise that his announcement will be greeted like a smack in the face by people in the North-East Lancashire intermediate area? Does he recognise that a number of decisions which have been made recently have steadily eroded the position of the intermediate areas? With this announcement following the decision to double REP, which gives a vast new incentive to development areas and further weakens the relative position of the intermediate areas, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that

491
there will be great dissatisfaction that no promises whatsoever have been made to North-East Lancashire?
Mr. Short: I know that there is a problem in North-East Lancashire. This is one area which must be looked at in future. It is the kind of area to which newly created bodies could be sent. But I repeat the problem that I have mentioned two or three times already—namely, the need to have large concentrations of civil servants in provincial areas instead of fragmentation. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about North-East Lancashire.
Mr. Gourlay: While welcoming the dispersal of over 7,000 staff to Scotland, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there will be great disappointment in Fife and other parts of Scotland that the Government have seen fit to transfer from the largest conurbation in England to Glasgow, which is the largest conurbation in Scotland? This cannot be sensible economic planning. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider allocating the Overseas Development Department to Fife or some other part of the East Coast of Scotland?
Mr. ShortOn the criteria that I have mentioned, Glasgow has the greatest capacity in Scotland for absorbing civil servants. That is why we have sent a large number there. As I said last week, it is an extremely desirable place in which to work and live. I am sure that when the civil servants move there they will enjoy working and living there.
Mr. Carlisle: Whilst welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask how many, if any, of the jobs coming to the North-West are coming to the Runcorn new town, which already has a successful civil service unit? Secondly, will he bear in mind that dispersal of this nature is of greater help to areas such as Runcorn and Merseyside as a whole than necessarily the doubling of the REP, which, although it helps my constituency, creates an imbalance in the North-West and areas like North-East Lancashire?
Mr. Short: We may disagree about the definition, but roughly 5,280 jobs will be coming to the North-West. I agree that
492
this is the kind of employment that areas like the North-West and the North-East of Scotland need.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: While welcoming the number of jobs that will be coming to Scotland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what proportion of those jobs will already be filled by staff who will be transferred from London and elsewhere? Secondly, in view of the dissatisfaction which was experienced at the time of the transfer of the National Savings Bank over housing arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether any special provision will be given for housing in the Glasgow area?
Mr. Short: It is difficult to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. At a rough guess, I should have thought about half, but, of course, there will be a succession of jobs available from then on.
On the second point, as I pointed out before, we will begin discussions with the local authorities about housing, accommodation, and other arrangements that can be made.
Mr. Roy Hughes: I thank the Lord President of the Council for his statement. Is he aware that the people of South Wales appreciate that it was the last Labour Government that established the Motor Taxation Office at Swansea, the Royal Mint at Llantrisant and the Business Statistics Office at Newport. The announcement of new jobs for Cardiff and Newport will again be particularly welcome. I assure my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) that any civil servants who are dispersed there as a result of this announcement will be made particularly welcome.
Mr. Short: I am sure that is correct. Everyone is welcome in South Wales. We are sending 7,400 jobs there. There are a great many qualified young people in South Wales, and these jobs will provide them with the kind of employment opportunities that they need.
Miss Fookes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that not one of the 5,000 jobs recommended in the Hardman Report is to go to Plymouth? Will he explain more fully why the South-West is so shabbily treated?
Mr. Short: It is true that in this dispersal no new jobs are to go to Plymouth. However, the hon. Lady will recollect that there are a large number of civil servants in Plymouth already. [Interruption.] Indeed there are. I have lost the figures for the moment, but there are large numbers there. As a matter of

Department

Approximate number of posts

Location

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

…

…

…

1,250

Merseyside

Agricultural Research Council

…

…

…

160

Merseyside

Civil Service Department

…

…

…

360

Norwich*

300

Basingstoke*

50

Sunningdale*

H.M. Customs and Excise

…

…

…

500

Southend*

Ministry of Defencet†

…

…

…

5,000

Cardiff

6,000

Glasgow

Department of the Environment

…

…

…

1,160

Bristol

Countryside Commission

…

…

…

90

Cheltenham

Property Services Agency

…

…

…

3,000

Teesside

1,000

To be decentralised to Regional Headquarters

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

…

…

…

500

Merseyside

Department of Health and Social Security

…

…

…

500

Newcastle*

980

Blackpool*

Home Office

…

…

…

1,000

Merseyside

Natural Environment Research Council

…

…

…

190

Swindon‡

Ministry of Overseas Development

…

…

…

1,000

Glasgow

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

…

…

…

500

Merseyside (Southport)*

Science Research Council

…

…

…

380

Swindon‡

H.M. Stationery Office

…

…

…

380

Norwich*

Departments of Trade and Industry

…

…

…

1,600

Cardiff and Newport*§

Laboratory of the Government Chemist

…

…

…

360

West Cumberland

Export Credits Guarantee Department

…

…

…

800

Cardiff

Manpower Services Commission

…

…

…

750

To be decided

Health and Safety Commission

…

…

…

—

To be decided

Inland Revenue

…

…

…

—

To be decided

* Existing Dispersal Centre for the Departments concerned.

† The numbers given may be affected by the result of the Defence Review and must be regarded as no more than estimates for the time being.

‡ Confirms decisions announced by the last Administration in 1973.

§ Includes some 1,000 posts in part of the Companies Registration Office, already announced.

POLICE (INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS)
Mr. Lane: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have had any request from the Home Secretary to make a statement on future procedures for the investigation of complaints against the police? This is an important matter both to the police and to the public and it has frequently been raised at Question Time. It will be most unsatisfactory if any announcement now takes the form of a Written Answer.
Mr. Norman Fowler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter was raised on several occasions in common with hon. Gentlemen opposite at
fact, the Land Registry is there and, of course, the Royal Navy Dockyard.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on.
The details are as follows:
Question Time. We were specifically promised that a statement would be made in this House on the matter. It is a matter of considerable concern not only to the public but to the police service. It would be highly unsatisfactory if it was announced as a Written Answer in a semi-underground way.
Mr. Speaker: No doubt that matter will be noted.

TEESSIDE
Mr. Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman opposite representing a distant constituency to attempt to speak on behalf of my constituents and the

495
constituents of other hon. Members representing Teesside constituencies in criticising the Government?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a good try, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair.

TRIUMPH MOTOR CYCLES, MERIDEN
Mr. Tom King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks by apologising for not giving you normal notice of my request.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the proposal of the Government to assist the Meriden Co-operative with a total contribution of £6.05 million without parliamentary approval contrary to the requirements of the Industry Act 1972".
I raise this matter because, as you will have heard from previous exchanges with the Leader of the House, it was clear that he was not conceding that if this project in total involved these sums of money a statement should be made to the House. I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in your period—
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said in terms that if it exceeded £5 million we would come to the House for approval.
Mr. King Mr. King rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think that this is an abuse of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. [Interruption.] I listened carefully to what happened. The Leader of the House promised to look into the matter and, if necessary, to make a statement.
Mr. Tom King: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman said that, but his words were carefully chosen. We are particularly concerned about the way that the money is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman's statement exactly parallels the way in which the Secretary of State for Industry is proceeding with the matter. If I might briefly elaborate the matter I
496
think that it will become clear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Member. I am not allowed to give my reasons. His submission appears to be based on something which was printed in a newspaper, and I cannot accept a Standing Order No. 9 application on that basis without notice.
Mr. King: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may we secure through you a firm undertaking that a statement will be made on this question by the Secretary of State for Industry before the House rises? It must be clear to the Leader of the House that there is real concern over this matter which could be cleared up if the Secretary of State was prepared to make a statement. We have had only one written answer on this whole matter. If the Leader of the House is hiding behind the technical protection of the Industry Act he should recall that on a previous occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), when the Government made a contribution of £4·8 million to Norton Villiers Triumph, made a statement to the House although he was not specifically required to so. He did so so that it should not be thought that he was in any way trying to avoid bringing the issue before the House.
I should be very much happier if this could be simply resolved by a statement tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Industry so that before the House adjourns we know exactly what the situation is.
Mr. Edward Short: I repeat the firm undertaking I gave as clearly as I can. The Government will comply with the law and if the money we offer to this firm exceeds £5 million we shall come to the House for parliamentary approval. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

BILL PRESENTED

  SURVIVING SPOUSE (CONTINUATION OF MOTOR INSURANCE)
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop supported by Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. W. Benyon, and Miss Janet Fookes, presented a Bill to provide that, where there is in existence a contract of insurance which enables one spouse to drive for pleasure, social or domestic purposes a vehicle or vehicles which the said policy covers for the benefit of the other spouse with whom

  497
  the contract of insurance was made, the contract of insurance shall continue until its normal date of expiry, or for fourteen days, whichever shall be the longer, on the death of the spouse who entered into the contract of insurance without additional premium payment: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

RAPE (ANONYMITY OF VICTIMS) BILL
4.12 p.m.
Mr. F. P. Crowder: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide anonymity for victims of illegal rape in criminal cases except by direction of the Court.
In particular I draw attention to the last six words of the motion—
"except by direction of the court"
because from time to time in cases of rape it would be of assistance to the defence for the name and address of the alleged victim to be published. We know only too well that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and that there are women who, out of spite and venom, will quite unjustly and wrongfully accuse persons of having raped them. It often happens that they do it not once but twice, and if such information comes to the knowledge of the defence and the defence feels it right and proper that it should be disclosed in the newspapers counsel can make application to the court and it will be within the discretion of the sitting judge to decide whether the victim's name should be published.
I hope that this is not a controversial measure. Hon. Members will recall not so long ago in the Eastern Counties a case which received tremendous publicity. It involved a lady following a distinguished career on the stage who alleged that she was raped by a police officer. She was subjected to publicity of the strongest possible kind and I am happy to say that her courage in coming forward in the way she did was reflected by the jury, who found the police officer guilty.
One statistic we do not know is the number of people who are victims of rape but who, because they do not wish to face the publicity not only perhaps in the national Press but in their local papers, refuse to come forward and give a statement to the police with all that that involves. I say that advisedly because in the first instance they have to go to the police station and make a statement. In a case of that sort they must undergo long and careful interrogation. Then, if Section 1 of the 1967 Act is not invoked, they can be told to appear at the magistrates' court. The woman will probably have to spend half a day waiting for the

499
case to come on and then be subjected to cross-examination. Three or four months later when the matter comes be-before a judge and jury at assize she finds herself once more in the witness box.
In most cases where only one person is involved the defence is nearly always one of consent. That is an instance of a perfectly innocent lady having to answer the most outrageous allegations against her virtue. That in itself is an unpleasant experience, but then to see these allegations placarded in the Press only adds insult to injury and cannot assist the needs of justice in any way.
Generally speaking, cases of rape fall into three or possibly four categories. First, there is the case of rape involving a number of young men. There is the case where one young man or an older man uses the threat of violence or violence with a knife or a gun. Then there are cases which should perhaps never come before courts. They happen in this way. A young lady returns home in the early hours of the morning. Her mother is waiting up because she is anxious about her daughter. The young lady's appearance is dishevelled, and if it happens in the summer months she may have a certain amount of straw attached to her. The mother proceeds to interrogate the girl who bursts into tears and says she has been raped. The father is awakened and he rushes off to the police station. There the wheels of the criminal law start to turn and there is no stopping them.
500
I repeat that generally speaking where innocent single victims are concerned the defence is one of consent with all that that involves for the person in the witness box. I do not see that the ends of justice can in any way be assisted by that person's name, reputation and sometimes professional career being placarded before the general public. If the defence is successful on the basis that there might have been consent, if the jury feels there is reasonable doubt and they cannot say with the certainty which the law requires that the defendant is guilty he is acquitted. For ever after, that unfortunate victim will have a finger pointed at her and people will say, "Of course she consented" and her reputation is ruined.
I hope that the Bill will not be opposed, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. F. P. Crowder, Mrs. Jill Knight and Mr. Maurice Edelman.

RAPE (ANONYMITY OF VICTIMS) BILL
  RAPE (ANONIMITY OF VICTIMS)
  Mr. Petre Crowder accordingly presented a Bill to provide anonymity for victims of illegal rape in criminal cases except by the direction of the court: and the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th October and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
Lords amendments considered.
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
  Clause 2

    STATUS OF TRADE UNIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 43, after "this section" insert "and section 4 below".
    4.20 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendment No. 2, in Clause 3, page 3, line 43, after "this section" insert "and section 4 below".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

  New Clause "A"

    RIGHTS OF WORKERS AGAINST ARBITRARY EXCLUSION FROM TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP.
    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4A, line 36, at end, insert the following new Clause A—

    "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every worker shall have the right not to be—

    (a) excluded from membership;

    (b) expelled from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

    (2) The exclusion or expulsion of a worker from membership of a union, branch or section
    502
    shall not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable if the worker is of a description different from that or those of the majority of the members of that union, branch or section (as the case may be) or does not possess the appropriate qualifications for such membership.

    (3) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that union, branch or section.

    (4) Where any such declaration has been made and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such other relief (including compensation) as the Court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.

    (5) Nothing in this section or section 2(5) above shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from a trade union."

    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    I do not suppose that anyone in the House, particularly those who endured the Committee and Report stages and other proceedings on the Bill, will wish me to rehearse the arguments on the clause at any length. I certainly do not propose to do so. But I trust that in my referring to the matter briefly no one will thereby jump to the assumption that I do not regard the clause as an important one. We certainly think that it is important. As we have said on previous occasions, we believe that it is necessary that steps should be taken to deal with the problem with which the clause seeks to deal. But, as we have explained previously, we do not think that the way in which the Opposition has sought to deal with the matter is sensible. Indeed, we believe that this way of going about it would be injurious, perhaps, to the performance that they themselves or others have at heart in trying to deal with the problem.
    I shall not, therefore, go over those arguments again. I merely say that on the ground of principle, as I have argued previously, we disagree with the proposal for this way of dealing with it. However, I repeat all the undertakings that I have made on behalf of the Government on

    503
    Second reading, in Committee and on Report. I repeat all the undertakings that we certainly intend to proceed to deal with it in some form or other, either in a code of practice or by some other means, but following consultations with the General Council of the TUC, when we introduce the next Bill in the autumn—the Employment Protection Bill.
    In examining the clause as it has returned from the other place, I should like to reinforce our objections to the acceptance of this clause by underlining some of the deficiencies which we see in it as it is drafted, and which further indicate why it would be much more desirable to proceed to deal with the matter along the lines that the Government have suggested from the beginning. But here are some particular matters on which we think that the clause is defective—defective even for achieving any sensible result.
    First, while arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination may be a good test in relation to exclusion from a trade union, it does not make sense in relation to expulsion. Second, the sensible test for expulsion is to ask whether it is fair and reasonable by ordinary commonsense standards. This is not necessarily the same thing as asking whether the expelled member was treated differently from other members. Third, the test in subsection (2) of the worker in question being of a different description from the majority of members of the union will often produce a nonsense in relation to expulsion.
    Fourth, the other test in subsection (2) about possessing the appropriate qualifications for membership of the union seems misconceived. Section 65 of the 1971 Act mentioned appropriate qualifications for a job, a legitimate test. This part of subsection (2) either duplicates the "description" test or goes too far. For instance, it might allow a union to exclude applicants for membership on the ground that their fathers or grandfathers had not been members of the union.
    Fifth, subsection (2) appears to suffer from the same defect as subsection (1), namely, that the provisions work for refusal to admit but not for expulsion. It is established that if a worker is ineligible but is "admitted" to membership then
    504
    when his ineligibility is discovered he is not "expelled" because he has never been a member. Sixth, subsection (3) could be criticised for not giving enough guidance to industrial tribunals as to when they are to make a declaration.
    Seventh, subsection (4) is defective in four different respects. In the first place, one does not "implement" a declaration, although one can give effect to what it declares. Next, the subsection does not answer the question whether the worker has to prove his right to membership all over again before the High Court or whether he can simply prove the declaration and the fact that it has been ignored. Third, the subsection gives no guidance on the awarding of compensation and how it is to be assessed; nor does it give power to assess further compensation if the union persists in excluding a worker.
    I cannot believe that subsection (5) is necessary. It is inconceivable that the courts would construe the existence of the clause as cutting down any common law rights.
    We believe, therefore, that those are good reasons why the clause as it stands, even for the purpose as the Opposition and the House of Lords have expressed it, is deficient and should not be accepted by a Parliament which is saying that it wants to make the law clear. We think that the reason why such a deficient clause has been presented to the House is precisely that, as we have reiterated in previous debates, those who have drawn up the clause are not really familiar with the conduct of trade unions. That is why they have produced a clause which does not bear any relationship to the way in which these matters can be dealt with.
    Therefore, even in the interests of securing a clause which achieved the end which right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition have indicated, we would say that there are good reasons for rejecting the clause, because a clause of this nature put into the law of the land and operated, giving rise to the anomalies and disagreements which would certainly arise from such a badly drafted clause, might prejudice the whole idea of getting a sensible arrangement in the end.
    I turn to another subject which does not immediately appear to be exactly connected with this aspect of the matter—although I believe that it is and I shall

    505
    seek to illustrate that shortly. I must comment briefly, however, on the position left on the so-called Lever amendments and the failure of the House of Lords, notably Lord Hailsham, to alter them in any particular whatever. This relates to what we are discussing. This affects the question of the circumstances in which someone might be excluded or expelled from, or find himself no longer a member of, a union. But it is necessary that the House should consider, in relation to the clause and the Bill generally, what is the position on the statute book as a result of the House of Lords' attitude to the so-called Lever amendments. The House will recall the incident which occurred a week or two ago.
    4.30 p.m.
    One result of those two amendments as they stand would be complete confusion. By giving what could be a totally misleading definition of a closed shop, Parliament will be saying "We define as an elephant an animal with a long neck and horns, and it is for the courts to apply the definition in the real world where elephants have trunks and tusks." That could be one of the meanings of the definition which has been placed in the Bill.
    A possible serious deduction from this ridiculous situation is that people may be deprived of the right which the whole House wishes them to have. Those who remember all our discussions will remember our discussions about people with religious convictions and how that might apply in cases of unfair dismissal. If the normal type of closed shop agreement does not fall within the present definition, this could mean that workers dismissed in a closed shop situation, although they have religious objections to belonging to any trade union, will be deprived of any protection against unfair dismissal which the Government wanted to provide.
    There is another possible explanation for these provisions. On the strict wording of the Bill as it stands and which the House of Lords has denied us the right to alter, there is another reading which could be satisfactory to the Government but, I presume, not to the Opposition. The Act read as a whole makes both legal and industrial sense only if the Lever membership agreement is permitted to specify to which unions the
    506
    relevant workers must belong—in other words, it may be that the main aim the Government had in mind is achieved despite the Opposition mutilations. The Government would have preferred to have made the law clear instead of leaving it in this state of chaos.
    Mr. Ian Percival: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been more informative and at the same time more fair if, instead of blaming the Upper House for this situation, he told the House that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made two offers to clear the defect about which he has spoken and that it is the Government who have rejected them out of hand and turned down the opportunity to avoid all the difficulties about which he is speaking?
    Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given a fair account of what has occurred. I intended to refer to discussions which had taken place. No real responsibility for this state of affairs can be pinned upon the Government, because in the Lords the Government attempted to return the Lever amendments to the Commons for intelligent scrutiny. Thus all the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for an alteration of what might be done would under his proposal have come back to the Commons for discussion. We were certainly not opposed to that.
    Indeed, if what the Government proposed in the Lords had been accepted the matter could have come back to the Commons for decision. However, it is by the decision of the House of Lords, and in particular on the insistence of Lord Hailsham, as is evident from the debates that took place there, that we have been denied the right to settle the matter, whether with the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendments or with others. The Tory majority in the House of Lords flatly rejected the proposal to deal with the matter in that way.
    Therefore, the so-called Lever amendments should be given their proper name. They will go on to the statute book as the finest specimen of Hailsham law, brilliantly contradictory to the point of schizophrenia. That is the fact. No hon. Gentleman opposite can escape from the responsibility for the situation.

    507
    If it is proposed to go ahead with some of the other amendments, which unfortunately leave the law in chaos, nobody will know exactly what is the meaning of the law on those two amendments until the matters come before the courts.
    Mr. James Prior: Why, then, did not the right hon. Gentleman move amendments himself in the Lords, as he could have done, and which would have been accepted by the House of Commons?
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Motions were moved which would have ensured that these matters would have returned to the House of Commons. Those motions were defeated because the House of Lords—in particular, Lord Hailsham—were determined to adhere to these amendments despite their defects, and their obscurity.
    I come to the amendment and how it affects this position. Once again, what the House has to consider is whether Parliament is to place upon the statute book provisions which are very obscure. That would be the effect if we were to agree to the Lords amendment on the rights of workers against arbitrary exclusion from trade union membership.
    As I have indicated before in considerable detail in the sense of pointing out several defects in the amendment as it stands, it would be reprehensible if Parliament were not only to permit the Lever amendments, so-called, to go on to the statute book in the chaotic state in which the House of Lords has left them but were to proceed further to deal with the matter in a fashion not so different.
    I hope that the House has good reasons for disagreeing with this Lords amendment. On the question of seeking to avoid legal confusion, if this clause giving rise to such legal confusion were to be placed upon the statute book I believe that it would prejudice the aim which I think is held by many hon. Members, certainly by hon. Members on this side.
    We wish to deal with this problem in a fair and sensible manner. We believe that the best way of dealing with it is after consultations with the trade unions which are effective. The course I described on Second Reading, in Committee
    508
    and on Report is much the best way of proceeding. The House would make a great mistake if it were to substitute for our sensible recommendations measures which would lead only to further legal confusion and further uncertainty about the Bill's interpretation when it reaches the statute book.
    Mr. Barney Hayhoe:: I am sorry that the Secretary of State adopted the very unconstructive, dogmatic and "anti" attitude which has pervaded practically his whole approach to every suggestion, from whatever quarter, which has been designed to make substantial improvements to the Bill.
    I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is missing a great opportunity. I do not understand why he cannot find it in himself to accept the reasonable and sensible changes which have been proposed and which have commanded the support of the Conservative and Liberal benches and which I think would command much wider support if these issues were taken outside the House into a wider forum and public opinion could be tested.
    The Lords amendment suggests that workers shall have the right not to be excluded or expelled
    "from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination".
    That proposition is so unexceptionable as to command at least the support in principle of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends. I believe that we should be discussing the matter in a little detail but certainly not in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the matter in Committee, on Report and again today. His argument remained thin and got thinner as he repeated it.
    The substantial part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no need to carry this amendment because the Government propose to do something undefined on an unspecified date. The Government say that they do not know quite what they will do, or when they intend to do it, but that it would be much better to leave the situation open, with no protection for people treated arbitrarily except common law, which gives no protection to someone arbitrarily excluded from a union.
    Not quite all hon. Members on this side share the views that I have expressed.

    509
    Members of the Scottish National Party have throughout had no regard for the rights of the individual but have humped and stumped themselves completely into the Labour Party's pocket. They do not contribute to our debate, but no doubt their votes are useful to the Labour Party.
    In addition to his suggestion that we should wait, the right hon. Gentleman has attacked drafting deficiencies in the amendment with 10 nit-picking comments, which his advisers have no doubt been chasing around to find. I noticed that he was reading from a script instead of letting the words flow from his own mind as he usually does. The arguments, as a result, were unbelievably thin.
    On a new matter, the right hon. Gentleman said that subsection (5) in Amendment No. 3 was unnecessary. The point is made that nothing in the clause will detract from the common law rights of people affected. The right hon. Gentleman's legal advice may be absolutely certain that nothing in the preceding four subsections could in any circumstances affect those rights. But there is no harm in that final subsection. It may be tautologous but surely even in his own writings over the years there is the odd sentence which was not necessary, a belt reinforcing braces. That was the level of his arguments. I suspect that the simple truth is that he has not had the TUC's permission to accept the amendment.
    The right hon. Gentleman is already reported as saying that amendments in another place would stop trade unions doing things which they have been free to do for years. That is an interesting comment. Perhaps the report that I read, which was a condensed version—
    Mr. Foot: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Daily Telegraph.
    Mr. Hayhoe Mr. Hayhoe indicated assent.
    Mr. Foot: He has got it inaccurately, so I hope that he will not proceed. My reference to the amendment in the House of Lords which injured some activities which trade unions exercised between 1906 and the 1960s referred to the immunities clause and not this clause at all.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad of that explanation. The report in the Daily
    510
    Telegraph was a curious one. The suggestion could have led one into these wider aspects. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman did not seek to attack this change because it harmed union rights.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member must not follow the example of the Daily Telegraph. I said that I was referring to another clause, but he must not say that I was saying that the clause which we are discussing as adopted by the Lords contains nothing detrimental to unionists. As I have said, partly because of serious drafting errors, it could inflict injustices on people in closed shop and other situations.
    Mr. Hayhoe: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter, I might say that the reason why the Daily Telegraph used the words it did was that the words that he had used in his handout were seriously deficient. Of the amendments made in another place, he said in that handout:
    "But some of these amendments rob trade unionists of rights which they have held and invoked effectively during most of the period between 1906 and 1971".
    If he was not prepared to specify the amendments he had in mind and we have had to draw him to his feet today to make it clear that he was referring to the specific amendment to Clause 10, could he tell us what other amendments he thinks rob trade unions of their rights?
    Mr. Foot: Another one is that relating to interpretation of the union membership agreement under the interpretation which the Opposition placed upon it. But I have said already that there is a great deal of confusion there, that no one knows what it means.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Secretary of State dives in deeper. The House of Lords made no change to the definition of the union membership agreement—
    Mr. Foot: The Opposition did.
    Mr. Hayhoe: But the Secretary of State's handout talked of amendments made in another place. He gets deeper in the mire the more he tries to explain, with the broad brush spraying the dirt of condemnation in the handout. We now understand that he believes that what he said in the handout applies to changes to the immunity provisions. We may

    511
    come to those arguments later. What he said certainly does not apply to the matter that we are now discussing.
    The only compelling argument, which moved some of the Secretary of State's right hon. Friends, former Ministers, was the argument not that the proposals in the clause were wrong and deficient but that because the Government had promised to bring forward future changes we should wait until then. There was general agreement among members of his own party in another place that a provision of this kind against arbitrary or discriminatory expulsion or exclusion was a good thing. The whole background of the matter favours such a provision.
    So for all the right hon. Gentleman's fine words about what he may do in future, we should tell him and his hon. Friends that he leaves us wholly unconvinced, that we are not prepared to accept his advice to disagree with the Lords. On the contrary, we believe that the Lords have made a good amendment. It is an amendment that we have discussed in the past and that the House came near to supporting when we considered it before. I hope that today we shall confirm that we should have this protection against arbitrary or discriminatory action, even though it happens only occasionally. That is a matter agreed on both sides of the House. It is an essential protection, which must be implemented in the Bill.
    Sir Raymond Gower: The Secretary of State is asking the House to do a great deal, in asking it to sacrifice these Lords amendments. He has already admitted in his statement that if the amendment is excluded from the Bill the consequences for an individual could be serious. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he confessed that the amendment is excluded from the Bill the conequences could be of some significance to the individual affected. He said that if that happened the situation would be remedied by a clause to be included in the Employment Protection Bill. That is the inference to be drawn. Otherwise,
    that Bill would not be necessary. No hon. Member on this side of the House knows anything about that Bill. None of us—Conservatives, Liberals or other parties—has any idea what it will include, and probably many of the Secretary of State's own colleagues do not know.
    The Secretary of State is asking us to sacrifice this only safeguard for the sake of the amorphous inclusion of a new provision in a Bill that has probably not yet been drafted. I would remind the Secretary of State that the lives of Governments, like those of individuals, are somewhat uncertain. There is no certainty that we shall ever see that Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman alleged that the wording was defective. He even said that a declaration cannot be implemented. That is reducing the matter to an absurdity. The Secretary of State must know full well that the terms of a declaration can be implemented, and would be interpreted accordingly.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will realise on reflection that he is asking too much. He will not admit that anyone outside his own party can have a real concern for the welfare and well-being of the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those shouts from Labour Members emphasise the absurdity of that thought. There are many people in all parties who want an effective, excellent trade union movement, but the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that in certain circumstances through a defect in the law there can be tyranny within the movement. We do not want that. We want the movement to achieve the maximum success based on the voluntary association which was the basis of its design. We do not want it done by compulsion. I should have thought that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would want the same.
    I hope that we shall press for the inclusion of the Lords amendment in the Bill.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 276.

    Division No. 103.]

    AYES

    [4.55 p.m.

    Archer, Peter

    Ashley, Jack

    Atkins, Ronald

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ashton, Joe

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Barnett, (Guy Greenwich)

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Baxter, William

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Hamling, William

    Ogden, Eric

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hardy, Peter

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Bishop, E. S.

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Malley, Brian

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Boardman, H.

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Ovenden, John

    Booth, Albert

    Hattersley, Roy

    Owen, Dr. David

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Hatton, Frank

    Padley, Walter

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Palmer, Arthur

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Bradley, Tom

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Hooley, Frank

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Horam, John

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Prescott, John

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Campbell, Ian

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Radice, Giles

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Reid, George

    Carter, Ray

    Hunter, Adam

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Jackson, Colin

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Cocks, Michael

    Janner, Greville

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Coleman, Donald

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    John, Brynmor

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Rowlands, Edward

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Selby, Harry

    Cryer, G. R.

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Judd, Frank

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kerr, Russell

    Silverman, Julius

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Small, William

    Deakins, Eric

    Lamborn, Harry

    Snape, Peter

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Lamond, James

    Spearing, Nigel

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Stallard, A. W.

    Dempsey, James

    Lee, John

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)

    Doig, Peter

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stott, Roger

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Strang, Gavin

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Loughlin, Charles

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Loyden, Eddie

    Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley

    Edge, Geoff

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Swain, Thomas

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    English, Michael

    MacCormack, Iain

    Tierney, Sydney

    Ennals, David

    McElhone, Frank

    Tinn, James

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Tomlinson, John

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    McGuire, Michael

    Tomney, Frank

    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Torney, Tom

    Faulds, Andrew

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Urwin, T. W.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Magee, Bryan

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Flannery, Martin

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Marquand, David

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Watkins, David

    Ford, Ben

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Watt, Hamish

    Forrester, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Weitzman, David

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Wellbeloved, James

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Mendelson, John

    White, James

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mikardo, Ian

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Millan, Bruce

    Whitlock, William

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    George, Bruce

    Molloy, William

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Moonman, Eric

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Golding, John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    514

    515

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Woodall, Alec

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Woof, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Mr. Thomas Cox and

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Mr. James A. Dunn.

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    Loveridge, John

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Fox, Marcus

    Luce, Richard

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

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

    MacArthur, Ian

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Freud, Clement

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Fry, Peter

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Awdry, Daniel

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    MacGregor, John

    Beith, A. J.

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    McLaren, Martin

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Benyon, W.

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Biffen, John

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Madel, David

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Blaker, Peter

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marten, Neil

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mather, Carol

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Goodlad, A.

    Maude, Angus

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Gorst, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Bradford, Rev. R.

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Mawby, Ray

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Bray, Ronald

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

    Brewis, John

    Gray, Hamish

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridgeWells)

    Brittan, John

    Grieve, Percy

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Grist, Ian

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Gurden, Harold

    Moate, Roger

    Buck, Antony

    Hall, Sir John

    Molyneaux, James

    Budgen, Nick

    Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

    Money, Ernle

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hannam, John

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morris, Mitchell (Northampton, S.)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hastings, Stephen

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Carson, John

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mudd, David

    Channon, Paul

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Neave, Alrey

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Neubert, Michael

    Churchill, W. S.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Higgins, Terence

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Hill, James A.

    Normanton, Tom

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Holland, Philip

    Nott, John

    Clegg, Walter

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Onslow, Cranley

    Cockcroft, John

    Hordern, Peter

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surry, E.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cope, John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Osborn, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Corrie, John

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Costain, A. P.

    Hunt, John

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Pardoe, John

    Critchley, Julian

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Crouch, David

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Crowder, F. P.

    James, David

    Percival, Ian

    Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Dixon, Piers

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Raison, Timothy

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Jopling, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Redmond, Robert

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Dunlop, John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)

    Durant, Tony

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirk, Peter

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Elliott, Sir William

    Knox, David

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N. W.)

    Emery, Peter

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lane, David

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Farr, John

    Latham, Michael (Mellon)

    Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Fell, Anthony

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Sainsbnry, Tim

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Fidler, Michael

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    516

    517

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Stokes, John

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Shelton, Wiliam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Shersby, Michael

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Silvester, Fred

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Sims, Roger

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Tebbit, Norman

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Smith, John (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

    Townsend, C. D.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Spence, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Sproat, Iain

    Tyler, Paul

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Stainton, Keith

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Viggers, Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stanley, John

    Waddington, David

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Steel, David

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Dr. Gerard Vaughan.

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wakeham, John

    Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause B

    RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS
    Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4A, line 36, at end insert the following new Clause B—

    "(1) The rules of every trade union and employers' association shall contain provisions in respect of the matters mentioned in the following subsections of this section.

    (2) The rules must specify the name of the trade union or employers' association, the address of its principal office and the objects for which it was established.

    (3) The rules must make provision as to the purposes for which, and the manner in which, any property or funds of the trade union or employers' association are authorised to be applied or invested.

    (4) If any financial benefits are to be available for members of the trade union or employers' association out of its property or funds, the rules must make provision as to the amounts of those benefits and the circumstances in which they are to be available to members.

    (5) The rules must specify the manner in which any rules of the trade union or employers' association can be made, altered or revoked.

    (6) The rules must make provision for the election or appointment of officers and for the manner in which officers can be removed from office.

    (7) The rules must make provision:—

    (a) for the election of a governing body and for its re-election at reasonable intervals;

    (b) for the manner in which members of the governing body can be removed from office.

    (8) If the trade union or employers' association has officials (whether they are shop stewards, workplace representatives or other officials) who are not officers of the trade union or employers' association, the rules must make provision for their election or appointment
    518
    and for the manner in which they can be removed from office.

    (9) The rules must make provision as to the manner in which, for any purposes of the trade union or employers' association, elections are to be held or ballots taken, including the following:—

    (a) notification of vacancies and qualification of candidates;

    (b) making of nominations;

    (c) canvassing or content of election addresses, where these are permitted;

    (d) elegibility for voting in any such election or ballot;

    (e) procedure preparatory to any election or ballot;

    (f) the procedure for counting and scrutiny of the votes and ballot papers; and

    (g) the procedure for the declaration or notification of the result of any such election or ballot.

    (10) The rules must specify the descriptions of persons who are eligible for membership of the trade union or employers' association or a branch or section of the trade union or employers' association and the procedure for dealing with applications for membership, including provisions for appeals against decisions of the committee or other body responsible for determining such applications.

    (11) The rules must specify:—

    (a) the offences for which the trade union or employers' association is entitled under the rules to expel a member or take other disciplinary action, and the penalties applicable for each of those offences;

    (b) the procedure for the hearing of cases in which offences against the rules are alleged; and

    (c) the procedure with respect to appeals against any decision on any such hearing.

    (12) The rules must prescribe a procedure for settling disputes between a member and the trade union or employers' association or an officer of the trade union or employers' association.

    (13) In making provision for any hearing or a determination of any question, whether in relation to an alleged offence, an appeal or a dispute, the rules shall be so framed as not to depart from, or permit any departure from, the rules of natural justice."

    Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): We shall take at the same time Lords amendment No. 6, in Clause 5, page 5, line 37, after "association" insert
    "or that its rules do not comply with the provisions of this Act."
    Mr. Booth: Lords Amendment No. 4 makes detailed provisions with which trade unions and employers' associations would have to comply in drawing up their rules. The amendment is based almost entirely on recommendations made by the Donovan Commission. It takes no account of the Trades Union Congress response to the adverse criticism by Donovan of some union rule books. That criticism was taken seriously by the TUC. It has resulted in considerable improvements being made to some trade union rule books so as to meet the Donovan criticisms.
    It is worth recalling that the TUC decision at Croydon in 1969 resulted in the TUC advising its member unions that they should apply very much higher standards to their rule books than the standards which would be required by the Lords amendment which we are now considering. It might be useful to the House if I indicate some examples of the way in which the TUC guidance to unions exceeded the standards set out in the amendment.
    The TUC guidance indicates that unions in framing their rules should include within the provisions the right of appeal by a member to a body of higher authority when a decision is taken by a lower body or a branch within the union which in any way disadvantages the member or subjects him to a fine.
    The TUC guidance to unions on rules requires that the powers of the appeal body to reinstate a member or reimburse his fine should be covered clearly and specifically within the rules. The guidance requires that where an expelled member decides to exercise his right of appeal he should be entitled to retain his membership while he exercises that right. All of these provisions of rules required by the TUC circular to affiliated unions do not apply under or are not required by this amendment.
    The TUC requirement requires a union to set out within its rule book who has
    520
    authority to call strikes and who has authority to end them. I hope to carry a large number of hon. Members opposite with me when I suggest that this is a rather important matter to have contained within the rules of a union. If we apply the same sort of consideration to employers' associations, as we must if we are to take the amendment seriously, presumably we would expect employers' association rules to require some very clear statement as to who has authority to order lockouts in certain cases and who has authority to terminate them.
    The TUC went on to consider, in giving directions to unions on the requirements of their rule books, the machinery that a union should possess for dealing with complaints on the conduct of appeals within the union. All of these are matters which are perfectly proper for the TUC to require of its member unions to be within their rule books.
    The House of Lords, by its amendment, apparently considers that these standards are not such as can be required by law. I believe that it is completely commensurate with the position we take that we should accept that, if we are to have higher standards of unions rules than those set out in the amendment, it can only be achieved and made effective by a body which commands the respect of and has the moral authority within the trade union movement to require unions to have higher standards of rule book. I therefore put it to the House that the higher standards achieved by the democratic machinery of responsible bodies in a free society is entirely desirable.
    Sir Raymond Gower: It is not uncommon for professional bodies and other associations to have higher requirements than those required by the law. As the requirements in the Lords amendment do not exclude the TUC from having its own higher requirements, why does the hon. Gentleman object to these modest requirements in statutory form?
    Mr. Booth: The Donovan Commission having made these criticisms, caused the TUC to require what should be done in advance of any consideration of legal requirements as to the register. I think that when any democratic machinery of responsible bodies, be they trade unions

    521
    or employers' associations, responds to the criticisms made by a Royal Commission, we should have proper regard for that fact. The House will surely consider it eminently desirable that we should not have to have recourse to law to obtain high standards of rules from democratic bodies in a free society. If we do, we are admitting to some extent that these bodies do not exercise the standards as democratic bodies that we would expect of them.
    Lords Amendment No. 4 sets out lower standards by law, and we must acknowledge that those standards are inferior to what can be done by a free body of men and women, acting freely in response to what they see to be a genuine adverse criticism of one aspect of the way they conducted themselves.
    Sir Edward Brown: Surely the TUC is purely and simply an advisory body, and has been since its inception. It has no powers of its own. What if unions, having their own autonomy, decide to reject advice from the TUC, as some of them have done in the past? How will that support the case the hon. Gentleman is putting?
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Booth: In the last analysis, of course, the TUC expels a union which does not comply with the requirements which are considered by the affiliated unions as a whole to be standards proper for unions in membership of the TUC. The TUC has exercised that prerogative recently, and has shown the importance it attaches to member unions complying with certain requirements.
    The TUC thought that the question of rules was sufficiently important to have a special congress. It got a unanimous decision on the proposition that the TUC should have the authority to issue its requirements of guidance on rules, and there is no suggestions that unions in general have not complied with that guidance. On the contrary, it is generally admitted that those few unions which were previously failing in this respect have generally responded to the TUC's wishes.
    I do not contend that the last word has been spoken on this matter, or that the TUC might in future go even further and set yet higher standards for union
    522
    rules. I do contend that where a freely elected body can require of its membership such high standards of rules it is eminently desirable that it should do so. If we pass legislation setting lower standards, there is a danger—and I put it no higher—that trade unions or any other bodies faced with such a situation will say, "We are meeting the legal requirements, so why should we go further?"
    But if there are no legal arguments, if there are no lower standards but only the high standards of bodies setting them freely, that is eminently to be desired. It is certainly better to have such standards than those minimum standards which may be enforced by law but which are lower than would have been freely produced.
    I think that I can show that the point I am making on the enforcement or requirement to comply with the regulation of rules in Lords Amendment No. 4 is weak and would lead to defects and deficiencies. Lords Amendment No. 6 lays down the sanctions for non-compliance with these rule requirements.
    The effect is to exclude from the list of unions kept by the Registrar of Friendly Societies those unions which do not comply with the rules requirements. The main consequence for unions excluded from the list would be a loss of tax relief on their benevolent funds. We know that a number of unions, because of their failure to register under the 1971 Act, have lost the benefit of tax relief on their benevolent funds. It has not been a refractive means of requiring unions to register. Many have been prepared to forgo large amounts of tax relief rather than register.
    There would also be certain other disadvantages for those unions which would not comply, including a difficulty or impediment in transferring property, which would be made somewhat easier for those unions which are registered. Unions may also have to go to some trouble to prove in a court that they are unions within the meaning of the Act in order to secure the immunity of Clause 11 of the Bill, but that is not my main complaint against this form of sanction.
    My main complaint is that if one seeks as a sanction the debarment from a union of a right to have tax relief on its benevolent funds through failure to comply

    523
    with a details set of rules requirements which are far lower than the high standards set by the TUC, that is creating a situation which on the basis of experience of the 1971 Act would not necessarily secure compliance and may be bitterly resented.
    I submit that we disagree with the Lords in both of the amendments.
    Mr. Prior: We believe that the Bill should become the new basis of our labour law in this country. We have said that over and over again from the Official Opposition. We have always made clear that our purpose was to ensure that the country was no longer divided on this question and that it was united in facing up to the critical issues now before it.
    We have always made clear, right from the time of our reasoned amendment on Second Reading, that it was our intention to ensure that the Bill would be a satisfactory basis for our future labour law. The difference between us and the Government is that we have felt the need to strike a rational balance between the conflicting interests at each point on the Bill, while the Government have never felt the need to argue the position they have taken up.
    We seek to improve the Bill wherever we feel it may be improved. We in the House—indeed the Government themselves—have a duty to the nation to ensure that legislation reflects national rather than sectional interests.
    On 10th July 1974 my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said:
    I am seeking, too, to defend Parliament and the people we represent, and I include the rights of unions and their members. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was right when he said that industrial relations legislation requires the consent of the unions. But it requires the consent not of the unions alone, still less of a mere powerful minority among them. It requires the consent of all work people, management and the great mass of our people inside and outside trade unions whom we represent in Parliament."
    My right hon. Friend also stated:
    "An article in the Sun newspaper two days ago referred to this transfer of power from Parliament to the unions in these words:
    'Rarely, if ever, has Parliament offered so unconditional a surrender.'"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July 1974.]
    524
    No one in the House could accept that for Parliament to offer such an unconditional surrender is a healthy position, and it is not one that the Secretary of State in any other capacity than that he now holds would have accepted for one moment. He would have been the first at the Dispatch Box, or below the Gangway, to say that it was a transferring of the rights of Parliament to a body outside Parliament.
    It is in that considered way that we approach the amendment which the Government have moved to the Lords amendment. The Lords amendment writes into the Bill a set of rules which the Minister of State has said are the minimum he thinks right. He says that the trade unions have in many cases gone far beyond the rules and have accepted a set of rules and standards higher than the basic set of standards which we seek to write into the Bill.
    It will not hurt or affect any union which already has a better set of rules. All it seeks to do is state the minimum set of rules. If the Government had wanted to say that the set of rules was not good enough they could have come along in Committee or on Report and produced a total set of rules which perhaps the trade unions are now putting into effect.
    The Minister of State seeks to justify not writing the amendment into the Bill because he says it might result in unions going for lower standards than they have at the moment. I do not believe that unions, having set higher standards, will say that those standards are too high and that they will have a lower set of rules. That will not happen. Unions which have a higher standard will maintain that standard. We hope, as the Minister thinks, that all unions would do this. Not all unions have done so, as we understand. If they do not, this is a set of rules which they should follow.
    Parliament ought to lay down the minimum standard on all matters of this kind. This is not a great issue of over-riding importance. I would have hoped that in view of what happened earlier this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman might accept that this is a minimum requirement and not an unreasonable one. If unions have this higher standard of rules already they have nothing whatever to

    525
    fear from the second of the two amendments. This is merely a way of making certain that the set of rules that we have put in is enforced.
    I do not suppose from what the Minister of State has said that it will apply to or affect more than a handful of unions. They will have to bring their set of rules up to the minimum standard required. That was put forward in "In Place of Strife" and was warmly supported by the Labour Government of that time. This is not designed to make the job of the unions
    or of the TUC more difficult. It is plainly a matter of common sense.
    For Parliament to pass the Bill without having some standards such as are laid down in the amendment would be a derogation of the duty of Parliament, and I hope that the House will take the same view as their Lordships.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 280.

    Division No. 104.]

    AYES

    [5.30 p.m.

    Archer, Peter

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ellis, John (Bragg & Scunthorpe)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Ashley, Jack

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Ashton, Joe

    English, Michael

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Atkins, Ronald

    Ennals, David

    Judd, Frank

    Atkinson, Norman

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Kelley, Richard

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerr, Russell

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Baxter, William

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Kinnock, Neil

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Lamond, James

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Flannery, Martin

    Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Boardman, H.

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Lee, John

    Booth, Albert

    Ford, Ben

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Forrester, John

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Bradley, Tom

    Freeson, Reginald

    Loughlin, Charles

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Loyden, Eddie

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

    George, Bruce

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    McCartney, Hugh

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)

    Golding, John

    MacCormick, Iain

    Campbell, Ian

    Gourley, Harry

    McElhone, Frank

    Cant, R. B.

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Carter, Ray

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    McGuire, Michael

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Cocks, Michael

    Hamling, William

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hardy, Peter

    Magee, Bryan

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Harper, Joseph

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Marquand, David

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hatton, Frank

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Meacher, Michael

    Cryer, G. R.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    Mendelson, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hooley, Frank

    Mikardo, Ian

    Davidson, Arthur

    Horam, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Klibride)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Huckfield, Leslie

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

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Molloy, William

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Moonman, Eric

    Deakins, Eric

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Hunter, Adam

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Dempsey, James

    Jackson, Colin

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Doig, Peter

    Janner, Greville

    Oakes, Gordon

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Ogden, Eric

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Dunn, James A.

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Edelman, Maurice

    John, Brynmor

    Ovenden, John

    Edge, Geoff

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Owen, Dr. David

    Padley, Walter

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Silverman, Julius

    Watkins, David

    Parry, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watt, Hamish

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Small, William

    Weitzman, David

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Snape, Peter

    Wellbeloved, James

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Spriggs, Leslie

    White, James

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Stallard, A. W.

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Prescott, John

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)

    Whitlock, William

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Radice, Giles

    Stott, Roger

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Reid, George

    Strang, Gavin

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Swain, Thomas

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    Tierney, Sydney

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Rooker, J. W.

    Tinn, James

    Woodall, Alec

    Rose, Paul B.

    Tomlinson, John

    Woof, Robert

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Tomney, Frank

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Rowlands, Edward

    Torney, Tom

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Tuck, Raphael

    Selby, Harry

    Urwin, T. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Mr. Thomas Cox and

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)

    Gurden, Harold

    Aitken, Jonathan

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

    Hall, Sir John

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Dixon, Piers

    Hannam, John

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Hastings, Stephen

    Awdry, Daniel

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Hawkins, Paul

    Beith, A. J.

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Bell, Ronald

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

    Dunlop, John

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Durant, Tony

    Heseltine, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Eden, Rt. He. Sir John

    Higgins, Terence

    Blaker, Peter

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hill, James A.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Holland, Philip

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Emery, Peter

    Hordern, Peter

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)

    Bradford, Rev. R.

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Farr, John

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Bray, Ronald

    Fell, Anthony

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Brewis, John

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Hunt, John

    Brittan, Leon

    Fidler, Michael

    Hurd, Douglas

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    James, David

    Buck, Antony

    Fox, Marcus

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Budgen, Nick

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Freud, Clement

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Fry, Peter

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Jopling, Michael

    Carson, John

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Channon, Paul

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Churchill, W. S.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kirk, Peter

    Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Goodlad, A.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Clegg, Walter

    Gorst, John

    Knox, David

    Cockcroft, John

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Lamont, Norman

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Lane, David

    Cope, John

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gray, Hamish

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Corrie, John

    Grieve, Percy

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Costain, A. P.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Critchley, Julian

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Crouch, David

    Grist, Ian

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Grylls, Michael

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    528

    529

    Loveridge, John

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Sproat, Iain

    Luce, Richard

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Stainton, Keith

    MacArthur, Ian

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Pardoe, John

    Stanley, John

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Steel, David

    MacGregor, John

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    McLaren, Martin

    Percival, Ian

    Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Stokes, John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Stradling Thomas, John

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Madel, David

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Raison, Timothy

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Marten, Neil

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tebbit, Norman

    Mather, Carol

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Maude, Angus

    Redmond, Robert

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Townsend, C. D.

    Mawby, Ray

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Trotter, Neville

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Tyler, Paul

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Viggers, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

    Waddington, David

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Moate, Roger

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Wakeham, John

    Molyneaux, James

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Money, Ernle

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Wall, Patrick

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mudd, David

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Neave, Airey

    Shelton, Willam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Neubert, Michael

    Shersby, Michael

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Silvester, Fred

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Sims, Roger

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Normanton, Tom

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Nott, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Spence, John

    Mr. W. Benyon.

    Osborn, John

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 5

    LISTS OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS
    Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 37, after "association" insert
    "or that its rules do not comply with the provisions of this Act."
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:
    The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 281.

    Division No. 105.]

    AYES

    [5.42 p.m.

    Archer, Peter

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Ashley, Jack

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, Ian

    Deakins, Eric

    Atkins, Ronald

    Cant, R. B.

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Carter, Ray

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Delargy, Hugh

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Dempsey, James

    Baxter, William

    Cocks, Michael

    Doig, Peter

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Cohen, Stanley

    Dormand, J. D.

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Coleman, Donald

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bishop, E. S.

    Conlon, Bernard

    Dunn, James A.

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Boardman, H.

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Booth, Albert

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Edge, Geoff

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Cronin, John

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Cryer, G. R.

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Bradley, Tom

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

    English, Michael

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ennals, David

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rooker, J. W.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lee, John

    Rose, Paul B.

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Rowlands, Edward

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Flannery, Martin

    Lipton, Marcus

    Selby, Harry

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Ford, Ben

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)

    Forrester, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Silverman, Julius

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    MacCormack, Iain

    Skinner, Dennis

    Freeson, Reginald

    McElhone, Frank

    Small, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Snape, Peter

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    McGuire, Michael

    Spearing, Nigel

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Spriggs, Leslie

    George, Bruce

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

    Golding, John

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Gourley, Harry

    Magee, Bryan

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Stott, Roger

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Strang, Gavin

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Marquand, David

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Swain, Thomas

    Hamling, William

    Meacher, Michael

    Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mendelson, John

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Mikardo, Ian

    Tierney, Sydney

    Hattersley, Roy

    Millan, Bruce

    Tinn, James

    Hatton, Frank

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Tomlinson, John

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

    Tomney, Frank

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Molloy, William

    Torney, Tom

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    Moonman, Eric

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hooley, Frank

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Horam, John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Watkins, David

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ogden, Eric

    Watt, Hamish

    Hunter, Adam

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Weitzman, David

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wellbeloved, James

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Orbach, Maurice

    White, James

    Jackson, Colin

    Ovenden, John

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Janner, Greville

    Owen, Dr. David

    Whitlock, William

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Padley, Walter

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Palmer, Arthur

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    John, Brynmor

    Parry, Robert

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Prescott, John

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    Judd, Frank

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Radice, Giles

    Woodall, Alec

    Kelley, Richard

    Reid, George

    Woof, Robert

    Kerr, Russell

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Lamond, James

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Mr. Thomas Cox.

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wlshaw)

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Blaker, Peter

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Buck, Antony

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Body, Richard

    Budgen, Nick

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Atkins, Rt Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Bradford, Rev. R.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Brains, Sir Bernard

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Beith, A. J.

    Bray, Ronald

    Carson, John

    Belt, Ronald

    Brewis, John

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

    Britten, Leon

    Channon, Paul

    Benyon, W.

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    532

    533

    Churchill, W. S.

    Holland, Philip

    Pardoe, John

    Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hordern, Peter

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire. S.)

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Percival, Ian

    Clegg, Walter

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Cockcroft, John

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Hunt, John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cope, John

    Hurd, Douglas

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Raison, Timothy

    Corrie, John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rathbone, Tim

    Costain, A. P.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)

    James, David

    Redmond, Robert

    Critchley, Julian

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Crouch, David

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd ns're)

    Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

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

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Jopling, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Dixon, Piers

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N. W.)

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kirk, Peter

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Dunlop, John

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Durant, Tony

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knox, David

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Lamont, Norman

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lane, David

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Emery, Peter

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Shersby, Michael

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Silvester, Fred

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Sims, Roger

    Farr, John

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fell, Anthony

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Fidler, Michael

    Loveridge, John

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & Lm'inglon)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    MacArthur, Ian

    Spence, John

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Macfariane, Neil

    Sproat, Iain

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    MacGregor, John

    Stainton, Keith

    Fox, Marcus

    McLaren, Martin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

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

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Stanley, John

    Freud, Clement

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Steel, David

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Madel, David

    Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Stokes, John

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Marten, Neil

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Mather, Carol

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh' m)

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, R. W.)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Mawby, Ray

    Tebbit, Norman

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Maxwell-Hyslop. R. J.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)

    Townsend, C. D.

    Goodlad, A.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Gorst, John

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Tyler, Paul

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Moate, Roger

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Gray, Hamish

    Molyneaux, James

    Viggers, Peter

    Grieve, Percy

    Money, Ernle

    Waddington, David

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Wakeham, John

    Grist, Ian

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    Welder, David (Clitheroe)

    Grylls, Michael

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Gurden, Harold

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Hall, Sir John

    Mudd, David

    Wall, Patrick

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Heave, Airey

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Neubert, Michael

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Hannam, John

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmer

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Hastings, Stephen

    Normanton, Tom

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Nott, John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Onslow, Cranley

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Osborn, John

    Heseltine, Michael

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Higgins, Terence

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and

    Hill, James A.

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Mr. Richard Luce.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 10

    ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OF FURTHERANCE OF TRADE DISPUTES
    Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
    "(1) An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only:

    (a) that it induces another person to break a contract of employment; or

    (b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or that he will induce another person to break a contract of employment to which that other person is a party."

    Mr. Foot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    In some respects this is the most important amendment to be discussed today. As in the previous debates, I do not propose to retrace all the arguments which have been advanced. That would serve no purpose. I wish to underline why we believe that the amendment as it has come back from the House of Lords should be rejected and why we put forward a different way of dealing with the matter in our original proposals.
    The suggestion was made quite frequently by Lord Hailsham in another place that we were misleading the House, or the country, about what we sought to incorporate in the Bill. He said that we had sought to give the impression that we were dealing solely with the 1971 Act and restoring the 1971 position, and that we were misleading people by not saying that our proposals contained some extension of immunities. I wish to repudiate any such suggestion. It should not be necessary for me to do so but, as the argument was used frequently in the House of Lords, perhaps I should repudiate it.
    Paragraph 11(c) of the Consultative Document issued on 22nd March stated clearly that:
    "The immunity which existed before 1971 for persons inducing breaches of contracts of employment in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute would be restored and extended to interference with all types of contract (including commercial contracts)".
    We have made that clear from the beginning, and we hold to that view now. It
    536
    would be a retrogressive step for the House to go back on that proposal which was originally in the Bill and which we should like to restore.
    The first main ground on which I say that it is essential that the original Government proposals should be accepted rather than the amendment rests on the argument that I have used on previous clauses, but it is of even greater importance here. It is that Parliament in dealing with this question at least should make up its mind and be clear. As I have already said, three of the amendments which have been pushed through, two by the Opposition in the House of Commons and two in another place, are obscure and will lead to great difficulties in the courts. The arbitrary exclusion clause that we have passed is riddled with a jumble of legal confusions. The same applies to the union arrangements clause passed by the House in the extraordinary circumstances which we recall and con, firmed by the House of Lords in a way which prevents us from scrutinising it again.
    There are two major clauses in the Bill of such obscurity that no one will know what they mean. If the House of Lords advice on this matter is taken, we shall again commit the same error. Any claim that the House of Lords ever had to be a revising Chamber of any distinction or even adequacy is completely destroyed by these events. The House of Lords refused even to examine the so-called Lever amendments that came from the House. They were not discussed in the House of Lords for more than a couple of minutes.
    The acceptance of the clause, as I am seeking to prove not from evidence of my citing but from others, which it is proposed to place on the statute book if the House of Commons does not come to a wiser conclusion than did the House of Lords, will mean that Parliament is deliberately restoring a major obscurity in the law touching on a most important aspect. Anyone who disputes what I say—I do not suppose that anyone does—might examine the section of the Donovan Report which refers precisely to the question dealt with in the amendment, which turns partly on whether the words "contract of employment" are to be used or the word "contract" which would cover commercial contracts.

    537
    Several pages of the Donovan Report were devoted to this subject. The commission made a recommendation about the way in which the obscurity should be removed, which is precisely the way the Government chose. If the House is to proceed deliberately to restore this obscurity, it is necessary to read paragraph 884 of the Donovan Report, which indicates that many others besides the Donovan Commission came to this conclusion. Paragraph 884 reads as follows:
    "It will be seen that it refers only to a contract of employment. Trade union officials and others who induce a breach of any other kind of contract, whether in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute or not, still commit an actionable tort. We have received a number of representations to the effect that this situation should be altered and that section 3 should be amended so as to extend to all contracts and not merely to contracts of employment. These representations come from the TUC,"—
    I know that Opposition Members do not care very much about the representations from the TUC—
    "a number of trade unions, some legal authors having a close knowledge of trade union law, and the Bar Council."
    The Bar Council, therefore, recommended that this obscurity should be removed from the law.
    It is true that our proposals go further than dealing only with that subject, but the Government clause in the original Bill dealt with the obscurity, whereas the Opposition and the House of Lords are deliberately proposing to reinstate the obscurity. That is what would happen if the House disagreed with our proposal to disagree with the House of Lords.
    6.0 p.m.
    I turn to the other aspect of the matter which we believe to be so serious from the point of view of the trade union movement. It might be argued by the Conservatives that their clause reinstates the provision of 1906. Some of the wording indicates that that is the situation, but as we have argued before—this is why Donovan said that such confusion had arisen—for a period after 1906 it seemed to operate satisfactorily and in a way in which commercial contracts were included. I shall not go through the cases again since they were covered in Committee and were all cited in the House of Lords, although they were disregarded by the Opposition there. But what happened
    538
    for a period was that the protections which trade unions exercised from about 1906 to the early 60s—protections which they had exercised reasonably in that period without fatal consequences for the nation at large—were whittled away by judicial decisions of one kind and another, including the invention of a new tort by Lord Denning. I know that I have to be careful on this matter, but as it was dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in another place I am sure that it is correct for me to do so. Those decisions were not contested in any formidable way at all.
    Because of the obscurity of the 1906 position, even though the intention in 1906 for two or three decades appeared to be translated into effect, and because of the growing effect of the judicial decisions, Lord Donovan recommended that a change should be made. The wording of our provision is that which was recommended by Lord Donovan—but that has now been knocked out by the House of Lords. The House of Lords is recommending to Parliament that we should return to all the obscurities which Donovan condemned. That could mean that the rights of trade unions in sympathy strikes could be considerably impaired. It could mean a legal battle over some of these matters. It would mean that some questions involving the rights of unions to exercise their right of sympathetic strikes would have to go back to the courts to be settled—and settled in circumstances of complete obscurity. That is what is being recommended and what is so dangerous. It is the whole attempt by the House of Lords and by the official Opposition to try to injure and impair this part of our Bill. There is a hankering after the 1971 situation.
    The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) got up and made a few pious remarks about how he wanted the Bill to be the basis of trade union law for the future. He talked as though the Bill was satisfactory to the Opposition in many respects. If we have converted them, we welcome that, but what they propose here is a reversion. They wish to revert to methods which will mean that, instead of industrial relations being dealt with sensibly, they will revert to the system under the 1971 Act. They will in one or two provisions seek to restore the kind of methods they adopted in the 1971 Act.

    539
    I am not saying that the clause will mean a complete reversion to 1971 or anything like that. Many of the protections which trade unions require—and many of the protections they require in respect of the abolition of the 1971 Act—are fully protected in our repeal Bill. But the amendment impairs the immunities for trade unions which they have exercised under the 1906 situation quite properly for decades and which in any clear statement of the law they should be entitled to exercise now.
    The Opposition should be under no misapprehension about the position. We do not want any tears from them in the way of sympathy for the trade union movement. There was an extraordinary statement by the Leader of the Opposition just after the General Election. He said that if they had won the election they would have kept the 1971 Act. He does not say that now. He reminds me of the line:
    "The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be".
    That was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now pretending that he has abandoned the methods of antagonism which led us to such disasters last winter when attempting to force through the clause. This has happened in an unelected place like the House of Lords, particularly when the only claim to survival of that place is as a revising body. But, far from revising the Bill, it has chosen to make more obscure every amendment that it has touched.
    Mr. Prior: Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that he filibustered on the last Lords reform Bill. The Government then had to withdraw it, but introduced the Industrial Relations Bill, which subsequently they had to withdraw, too.
    Mr. Foot: I do not know what relevance that has to this debate. It was partly because of my hostility to the House of Lords that I opposed that Bill. But its conduct on the present legislation justifies everything I said on the previous occasion. I hope it is understood that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords has been manoeuvred and mobilised on this occasion, first to make our repeal Bill obscure and secondly to try to resuscitate parts of the 1971 Act.
    Mr. Leon Brittan: Will the Secretary of State, if his anger allows him to contain himself for a moment, explain what the provision in the 1971 Act had to do with the matter?
    Mr. Foot: If one operated the clause under the obscure provisions which Donovan described, when one faced a decision on the question whether a union was acting within the law in trying to deal with commercial contracts and sought to bring pressure to bear, one could deal with the situation in a particular way. That is the analogy of the 1971 Act.
    Perhaps the Conservatives have already had support for their views in another place, flowing from their tame majority there. They may have thought that having used their privileged position in the House of Lords they could force through their amendments here. It is conceivable that they could do so, but I tell them that the judgment on these matters will not be made by the House of Lords. The judgment on these matters will not even be made by a minority House of Commons of this character. It will be made by the country.
    The Opposition wish to press the amendment. They should be more careful. They should remember that it was partly their enthusiasm for the 1971 Act which brought them to their knees. They should remember now that it is their spleen and hatred against the trade union movement which makes them and, in particular, their leader, unfit to govern the country. It was the aftermath of the malice and bitterness of the 1971 Act which led to the situation last winter. It is very unwise for the Conservative Party to invoke its majority in the Lords to assist it, and even more discreditable for the Liberal Party to support it.
    Mr. Percival: It is very odd to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about the bitterness of the Opposition when every word that he uttered was spitting with bitterness.
    I spoke after the right hon. Gentleman when we debated this amendment in Committee. I began my speech by saying that some of what he said had been entertaining but the rest was bunkum. On this occasion I omit the first few words. All that he said today was bunkum.

    541
    The right hon. Gentleman made one remark with which I agreed. He said that the House should be clear about what it was doing. However, he gave the House a fat lot of help to understand what it was doing. We have heard a load of bunkum about the so-called Lever amendments. I want to spend a few moments looking at the way in which the confusion crept in there.
    There were two amendments which were linked. The Government secured a dead heat on the first one through an error about which we now know, and they got their majority on it through the vote of the Chair. Then they proceeded to outvote the Opposition on the second amendment, which would have brought the two clauses, amended by the two amendments, into line with each other. But then, having discovered that they were wrong on the first one, they had not the grace to say that they would carry amendments into the second clause.
    The right hon. Gentleman talks about using the Upper House as a reviewing authority. Why did the Government not do that? They could easily have moved amendments in the other place which would have eradicated all the difficulties.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in the discussions about this matter we were asked to move amendments in the House of Lords, but only on the condition that we accepted those amendments when they came back to this House. That was the proposal. The condition was that we deprived this House of the right to decide the matter.
    Mr. Percival: The right hon. Gentleman will twist everything to suit himself. What was offered was an agreed solution to the difficulties of which he speaks. What kind of agreed solution is it if it is on the basis that one party can seek to change it later? The right hon. Gentleman does not attract much credit to his argument by putting forward that point.
    Two other ways of putting it right were offered to the right hon. Gentleman. He rejected both. He was entitled to do so, of course. But what the Government are not entitled to do is then to blame the Opposition for any difficulties that there might be in interpreting the words.
    542
    It is also quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we have made a nonsense of the closed shop. That is what has happened, according to Mr. Murray. That is rubbish. If anyone chooses to make an agreement coming within the terms of a union membership agreement, as now defined, he can pray in aid the advantages of Schedule 1. There is nothing to stop unions continuing to make the agreements that they make now.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that there is confusion in new Clause 1. I wish he had reminded the House that none of these points was taken in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knows that parliamentary counsel had a good look at the clause and suggested some corrections necessary to make it free of defects, and that at all stages thereafter it was so regarded.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has brought parliamentary counsel into the argument. I am not sure that that is proper. It is not correct to say that parliamentary counsel has agreed with new Clause 1 as it stands. Most of the defects which I cited are those which parliamentary counsel pointed out.
    Mr. Percival: The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about. We all know that parliamentary counsel vet every amendment and that technical defects discovered by them are in the forefront of the Government's answers. How often have we heard the argument, "It is a good idea, but it is unacceptable, because there are technical difficulties"? There was none in this case, but certain amendments to new Clause 1 were suggested and accepted.
    The right hon. Gentleman then says that all that the Opposition are doing in supporting this amendment from the Lords is supporting a return to a major obscurity. That is very different from his criticism of it over the weekend.
    Once again the Secretary of State relied on Donovan. He cannot appreciate how tempting it is for me to quote the passages from Donovan which lead to the opposite conclusion. I ask any hon. Member who might otherwise be led astray by the right hon. Gentleman's references to Donovan to look at the context in which Donovan said that what the right hon. Gentleman quoted.

    543
    The right hon. Gentleman conceded that his own Bill was extending the immunities, but, towards the end of his speech, he seemed to argue that it was not extending them but merely restoring to trade unionists the rights that they had taken away from them by the judges. The right hon. Gentleman knows that judges do not invent new laws. They apply the law to the circumstances of the cases which they have to decide. It is the long-standing law of the country, and it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to wag his head—
    Mr. Foot: It is not a question of my wagging my head; it is a question of the view of the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will advise his hon. Friends to read what the Lord Chancellor said in another place. It will be seen that my right hon. and noble Friend confirmed what I say.
    Mr. Percival: The Lord Chancellor used those words. However, I invite hon. Members to turn their attention to the speech of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, which coincides closely with what I say and which I think is the better view, with great respect to all the others concerned.
    I turn to the suggestion that their Lordships are robbing someone of something. In the first place, no one is robbed of anything. This amendment puts the position back to where it was before 1971, allowing for the Trade Disputes Act 1965.
    It is this House which will decide, and I invite this House to decide now in favour of this very sensible amendment made by their Lordships.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 282.

    Division No. 106.]

    AYES

    [6.21 p.m.

    Archer, Peter

    Davidson, Arthur

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Ashley, Jack

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hamilton, William (Fife. C.)

    Atkins, Ronald

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hamling, William

    Atkinson, Norman

    Deakins, Eric

    Hardy, Peter

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hattersley, Roy

    Baxter, William

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Hatton, Frank

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Dempsey, James

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Doig, Peter

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dormand, J. D.

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hooley, Frank

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Horam, John

    Boardman, H.

    Dunn, James A.

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Booth, Albert

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Edge, Geoff

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Bradley, Tom

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Hunter, Adam

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    English, Michael

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl).

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'dltch)

    Ennals, David

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Jackson, Colin

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Janner, Greville

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)

    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Campbell, Ian

    Faulds, Andrew

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Cant, R. B.

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Carter, Ray

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    John, Brynmor

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Flannery, Martin

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Cocks, Michael

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Coleman, Donald

    Ford, Ben

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Forrester, John

    Judd, Frank

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Kelley, Richard

    Cox, Thomas

    Freeson, Reginald

    Kerr, Russell

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Cronin, John

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    George, Bruce

    Lamond, James

    Cryer, G. R.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

    Golding, John

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Gourlay, Harry

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Lee, John

    Ovenden, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Owen, Dr. David

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Padley, Walter

    Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Swain, Thomas

    Lipton, Marcus

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Parry, Robert

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Tierney, Sydney

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford. W.)

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Tinn, James

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Tomlinson, John

    McCartney, Hugh

    Prescott, John

    Tomney, Frank

    MacCormack, Iain

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Torney, Tom

    McElhone, Frank

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Tuck, Raphael

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Radice, Giles

    Urwin, T. W.

    McGuire, Michael

    Reid, George

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Maclennan, Robert

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Magee, Bryan

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Watkins, David

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Watt, Hamish

    Marks, Kenneth

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    Weitzman, David

    Marquand, David

    Rooker, J. W.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Rose, Paul B.

    White, James

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Meacher, Michael

    Rowlands, Edward

    Whitlock, William

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Sandelson, Neville

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

    Mendelson, John

    Selby, Harry

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Mikardo, Ian

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)

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

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Molloy, William

    Slikin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Moonman, Eric

    Silverman, Julius

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Small, William

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Snape, Peter

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Spearing, Nigel

    Woodall, Alec

    Murray, Ronald King

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Woof, Robert

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Oakes, Gordon

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    O'Malley. Brian

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Mt. James Hamilton and

    Orbach, Maurice

    Stott, Roger

    Mr. Joseph Harper.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Channon, Paul

    Farr, John

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Fell, Anthony

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Fidler, Michael

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Speithorne)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Awdry, Daniel

    Clegg, Walter

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Cockcroft, John

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    Beith, A. J.

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Fox, Marcus

    Bell, Ronald

    Cope, John

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

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Freud, Clement

    Benyon, W.

    Corrle, John

    Fry, Peter

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Costain, A. P.

    Galbraith, Fin. T. G. D.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, E.)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Blaker, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Crouch, David

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Body, Richard

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. James

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Bradford, Rev. R.

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Bray, Ronald

    Dixon, Piers

    Goodhew, Victor

    Brewis, John

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Goodlad, A.

    Brittan, Leon

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Gorst, John

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Dunlop, John

    Gray, Hamish

    Buck, Antony

    Durant, Tony

    Grieve, Percy

    Budgen, Nick

    Dykes, Hugh

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Balmer, Esmond

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Grist, Ian

    Carlisle, Mark

    Elliott, Sir William

    Grylls, Michael

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Emery, Peter

    Gurden, Harold

    Carson, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Hall, Sir John

    546

    547

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Hannam, John

    Marten, Neil

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mather, Carol

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maude, Angus

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mawby, Ray

    Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Shersby, Michael

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh. W'wch, E)

    Silvester, Fred

    Heseltine, Michael

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)

    Sims, Roger

    Higgins, Terence

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Hill, James A.

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Hordern, Peter

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Smith, John (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surry, E.)

    Moate, Roger

    Spence, John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Molyneaux, James

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Money, Ernle

    Sproat, Iain

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

    Stainton, Keith

    Hunt, John

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hurd, Douglas

    Morris, Mitchell (Northampton, S.)

    Stanley, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Steel, David

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Mudd, David

    Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    James, David

    Neave, Alrey

    Stokes, John

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Neubert, Michael

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Normanton, Tom

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Nott, John

    Tebbit, Norman

    Jopling, Michael

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Townsend, C. D.

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Osborn, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Kimball, Marcus

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Tyler, Paul

    King Tom (Bridgwater)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Kirk, Peter

    Pardoe, John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Viggers, Peter

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Waddington, David

    Knox, David

    Percival, Ian

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Lamont, Norman

    Peyton, Rt. He. John

    Wakeham, John

    Lane, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Welder, David (Clitheroe)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Prior, Rt. He. James

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Raison, Timothy

    Wall, Patrick

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Warren, Kenneth

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Redmond, Robert

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Loveridge, John

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Luce, Richard

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    MacGregor, John

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davies and

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

    McNair-Wilson Patrick (New Forest)

    Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Madel, David

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 26

    MEANING OF TRADE DISPUTE
    Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 20, line 12, at end insert:—
    "so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute relating to matters occurring outside Great Britain are likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1) of this section by the outcome of that dispute."
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment would restrict immunities for those workers striking in support of overseas workers to cases in which British workers were affected by the outcome of the dispute. It would not cover a strike within a multinational company. We are surprised that the Opposition have not met this point. When we debated it in Committee and on Report they made it clear that they believed that a worker in a multinational company in this country should be able to strike

    549
    in support of another worker in that company working overseas and should have such protections and immunities for the pursuit or furtherance of a dispute as were open to a dispute in this country. Yet the amendment would restrict the right to those cases in which workers in this country would benefit from the outcome of the dispute—[Interruption.] The amendment would almost wholly destroy the object of Clause 26(3)—[Interruption.] The purpose of international trade union—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A great deal of conversation is going on. I want to hear the Minister.
    Mr. Booth: The purpose of international trade union federations, particularly those organised to cover the multinational company, is to enable workers in one country to act in support of those in another when those acting in support have no direct gain to obtain.
    Let us suppose, for example, that a company had one factory in France, one in Canada and another in England. If the workers in France were in dispute with the company and the company sought to place the production in the English or Canadian factory, if workers in either of those factories took action to stop that work being placed, they would not stand to benefit directly but would simply be acting to make the French dispute successful. That is the logic of organising unions to cope with multinational situations. The amendment would rob the English or Canadian workers of the limited protection now left in the Bill for workers in trade disputes. To meet the basic requirement of international unionism the amendment must be rejected.
    I should make it clear that the Government's opposition does not rest only on the multinational company. We intend that workers who strike in support of workers abroad should have such protections and immunities as are available under our union legislation. The amendment would reward selfishness, protecting strikes in which people engaged in their own interest but denying protection to strikes designed to aid others.
    It has now become clear that the system of larger multinational organisations means that the conditions of unionists are
    550
    threatened not only by the movement of sources of production from one country to another but by the use of means of production in one country to make good the deficit of goods from factories in other countries which are in dispute. If unions are to be organised effectively, they must from time to time call on the support of workers in other countries. The amendment would clearly deny to those who respond to such calls the limited protection left in the Bill. That is why we invite the House to disagree with the Lords.
    Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: We have made it clear throughout the prolonged discussions on the Bill that we are in favour of international trade unionism and of joint action by workers who have the same employer—in other words, multinational companies. We have also made it clear that we accepted that Oppositions did not always draft their amendments as perfectly as Governments and that if the Minister believed that our amendments did not meet the point but was willing to accept our arguments we would leave it to the Government to introduce amendments of their own.
    The Government have steadfastly refused to do so. The reason was made clear by the Minister of State in his customarily frank and open fashion, when he pointed out that what the Government were really concerned with was not strikes against multinational companies or by groups of workers sharing the same employer. He made it clear that he interpreted these matters much more widely.
    The Minister took an example—we both agreed that it was a far-fetched example—to show that he wanted the immunities and liberties of the Bill extended to British coal miners if they took strike action against the NCB in support of German coal miners striking against a German organisation. Those bodies would have no common link, and no interest in this country would be involved in the German action. That is a hypothetical case, but it illustrates the direction in which the Government wanted to go.
    We support international trade unionism and the proposition that employees of a multinational company in one country should be able to pursue common interests with workers in other

    551
    countries. However, we have always opposed the Government's aim to allow unions to strike with any political object in view, whether or not it was connected with what was going on—
    Mr. Booth: We have never said that we sought in the Bill to cover political objects of strikes. We made it clear that we wanted the immunities that apply to strikes in furtherance of a trade dispute to cover those acting in furtherance of a dispute abroad but not to those acting in furtherance of a political object abroad.
    Mr. Tugendhat: I take the point. It was argued in Committee and elsewhere that matters which in a British context were industrial became political in some countries, and that, in effect, the politics
    of other countries would be coming on to the shop floors here. The division between us has always been clear in these debates.
    The best thing for the House is to vote on the matter. It will be a vote of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. It is because the Government do not have the votes in the House of Commons that they have been losing Divisions on the Bill. If they had the votes in the House of Commons they would be all right. It is because they have not got the votes in the House of Commons that they keep losing.
    Question put. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 280.

    Division No. 107.)

    AYES

    [6.41 p.m.

    Archer, Peter

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Deakins, Eric

    Hattersley, Roy

    Ashley, Jack

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Hatton, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Atkins, Ronald

    Delargy, Hugh

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Atkinson, Norman

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Dempsey, James

    Hooley, Frank

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Doig, Peter

    Horam, John

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Baxter, William

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Edge, Geoff

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Hunter, Adam

    Boardman, H.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)

    Booth, Albert

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    English, Michael

    Jackson, Colin

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Ennals, David

    Janner, Greville

    Boyden, James (Bshop Auckland)

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Bradley, Tom

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    John, Brynmor

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey. Wood Green)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)

    Fiannery, Martin

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Campbell, Ian

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Cant, R. B.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Judd, Frank

    Carter, Ray

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Ford, Ben

    Kelley, Richard

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Forrester, John

    Kerr, Russell

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Cocks, Michael

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Cohen, Stanley

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lamborn, Harry

    Coleman, Donald

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lamond, James

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    George, Bruce

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cox, Thomas

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lee, John

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Golding, John

    Lever, Rt. He. Harold

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Gourley, Harry

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Cronin, John

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Cryer, G. R.

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hamling, William

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Harper, Joseph

    McCartney, Hugh

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    MacCormack, Iain

    McElhone, Frank

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    McGuire, Michael

    Prescott, John

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Tierney, Sydney

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Tinn, James

    McNamara, Kevin

    Radice, Giles

    Tomlinson, John

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Reid, George

    Tomney, Frank

    Magee, Bryan

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Torney, Tom

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Marks, Kenneth

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Marquand, David

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    Mason, Hn. Roy

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Meacher, Michael

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Rooker, J. W.

    Watkins, David

    Mendelson, John

    Rose, Paul B.

    Watt, Hamish

    Mikardo, Ian

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Weitzman, David

    Millan, Bruce

    Rowlands, Edward

    Wellbeloved, James

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Sandelon, Neville

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollak)

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

    Selby, Harry

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Molloy, William

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Whitlock, William

    Moonman, Eric

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Silverman, Julius

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Murton, Oscar

    Small, William

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Ogden, Eric

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stallard, A. W.

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    O'Malley, Brian

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Woodall, Alec

    Orbach, Maurice

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

    Woof, Robert

    Ovenden, John

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Owen, Dr. David

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Padley, Walter

    Stott, Roger

    Palmer, Arthur

    Strang, Gavin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Mr. James. A. Dunn and

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Mr. Walter Johnson.

    Parry, Robert

    Swain, Thomas

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Spearing, Nigel

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Fox, Marcus

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Clegg, Walter

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

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Cockcroft, John

    Freud, Clement

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Fry, Peter

    Awdry, Daniel

    Cope, John

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Beith, A. J.

    Carrie, John

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Bell, Ronald

    Coslain, A. P.

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

    Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, E.)

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh' m)

    Benyon, W.

    Critchley, Julian

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Crouch, David

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Blaker, Peter

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen James

    Goodhew, Victor

    Body, Rchard

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Goodlad, A.

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Gorst, John

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Dixon, Piers

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Bradford, Rev. R.

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Bray, Ronald

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Gray, Hamish

    Brewis, John

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Grieve, Percy

    Britten, Leon

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Dunlop, John

    Grimond, Rt. Hn.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Durant, Tony

    Grist, Ian

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Dykes, Hugh

    Grylls, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Gurden, Harold

    Buck, Antony

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hall, Sir John

    Budgen, Nick

    Elliott, Sir William

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Emery, Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Hannam, John

    Carlisle, Mark

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Farr, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Carson, John

    Fell, Anthony

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Channon, Paul

    Fidler, Michael

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    554

    555

    Heseltine, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Higgins, Terence

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Hill, James A.

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)

    Shelton, Wiliam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Holland, Philip

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Shersby, Michael

    Hordern, Peter

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Silvester, Fred

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Sims, Roger

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Moate, Roger

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Molyneaux, James

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Hunt, John

    Money, Ernle

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

    Spence, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    Sproat, Iain

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Stainton, Keith

    James, David

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Mudd, David

    Stanley, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Neave, Alrey

    Steel, David

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Neubert, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Stokes, John

    Jopling, Michael

    Normanton, Tom

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Nott, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Onslow, Cranley

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Tebbit, Norman

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Kirk, Peter

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Townsend, C. D.

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Pardoe, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Knox, David

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Tyler, Paul

    Lamont, Norman

    Percival, Ian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Viggers, Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Waddington, David

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Ralson, Timothy

    Wakeham, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Welder, David (Clitheroe)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Loveridge, John

    Redmond, Robert

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Luce, Richard

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Wall, Patrick

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Warren, Kenneth

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    MacGregor, John

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Wiggin, Jerry

    McLaren, Martin

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Winterton, Nicholas

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Madel, David

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Marten, Neil

    Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Mather, Carol

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Maude, Angus

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

    Mawby, Ray

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

RENT BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
RENT BILL [Lords]
  New Clause 1

    POWER OF COURT IN ACTION FOR POSSES SION TO REDUCE PERIOD OF NOTICE TO QUIT
    (1) After section 80 of the Rent Act 1968 there shall be inserted the following section:—
    "Power of country court, in action for possession, to reduce period of notice to quit.
    80A. In any case where—

    (a) a notice to quit a dwelling which is the subject of a Part VI contract has been served, and

    (b) the period at the end of which the notice to quit takes effect is for the time being extended by virtue of section 77 or section 78 above, and

    (c) at some time during that period the lessor institutes proceedings in the county court for the recovery of possession of the dwelling, and

    (d) in those proceedings the county court is satisfied that any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 80(2) above applies, the court may direct that the period referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be reduced so as to end at a date specified in the direction."

    (2) At the end of subsection (3) of section 106 of that Act (rules as to procedure) there shall be added the words "and section 80A."
    (3) After section 95 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 there shall be inserted the following section:—
    "Power of sheriff, in action for possession to reduce period of notice to quit.
    95A. In any case where—

    (a) a notice to quit a dwelling-house which is the subject of a Part VII contract has been served, and

    (b) the period at the end of which the notice to quit takes effect is for the time being extended by virtue of section 92 or section 93 above, and

    (c) at some time during that period the lessor institutes proceedings before the sheriff for possession of the dwelling-house, and

    (d)in those proceedings thesheriff is satisfied that any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 95(2) above applies, the sheriff may direct that the period referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be reduced so as to end at a date specified in the direction".—[Mr. Freeson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.50 p.m.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we are to discuss new Clause 8—Action for possession during reference under Rent Act—
    A reference to a rent officer, a rent assessment committee or a rent tribunal shall not preclude an action for possession of the premises to which the reference relates upon such grounds as the Rent Act permits nor the making by the court of an order for possession subject to the terms (if any) of the decision upon that reference.
    Mr. Freeson: The clause, which was tabled by the Opposition in Committee, provides that no reference to a rent officer, rent assessment committee or rent tribunal shall preclude an action for possession on such grounds as the Rent Acts may permit or the court's making an order on such a ground.
    It is difficult to understand what the clause might mean. No reference to a rent officer or rent assessment committee can have any effect on an action for possession, because such references are concerned solely with rent and not with security of tenure.
    In so far as the clause is concerned with references to a rent tribunal, it would appear that the intention is to allow a lessor under a Part VI contract to apply for an order for possession on any Rent Act grounds, notwithstanding that the operation of the notice to quit had been suspended by a Rent Act tribunal. However, it is not clear what is the force of
    "subject to the terms, if any"
    in that context.
    We have tabled the Government amendment to deal with some of the questions that were discussed in Committee. The clause incorporates in the Bill a provision enabling lessors under Part VI contracts—predominantly resident landlords after commencement of the Act—to obtain possession in the courts, even though their notice to quit has been suspended under Part VI, where a lessee is failing to pay rent or in some other way to observe his contract, causing nuisance to the landlord or other people in the house, causing the condition of the dwelling to deteriorate, or misusing the

    559
    furniture; in other words, behaving in such a way that if he were a protected tenant the landlord would have a ground for possessing under Case 1, 2, 3 or 3A of the main Rent Act 1968.
    At present, the landlord under a Part VI contract must, if he needs to get rid of a bad tenant who exercises his right to apply to the rent tribunal, go through two tribunals: first, the rent tribunal—twice, if the tenant, having obtained a suspension of notice to quit, continues misbehaving and the landlord seeks a reduction in the suspension under Section 80—and then at the county court. This may take months, during which the landlord may suffer heavy financial loss and/or distress.
    The clause inserts a new section in Part VI of the Rent Act following Section 80. This new provision establishes the powers of the court in any case where application is made for possession by a landlord whose notice to quit has been suspended under Section 77 or 78. It should be noted here that there is nothing at present to prevent a landlord's making such an application, but that if he did so the court, as matters stand, would not be able to grant an order for possession because the letting contract, having been extended by the suspension of the notice to quit, would still be in existence. The new provision would, in effect, alter this by enabling the court to bring the suspension of the notice to quit to an immediate end and thus to terminate the artificially extended contract. Once this has been done the court can, in the course of the same proceedings, make an order for possession.
    The new section will therefore provide, in subsection (1) that where, first, a notice to quit has been served; secondly, its operation has been extended by virtue of Section 77 or 78; thirdly, during the period in which the suspended notice is in operation the lessor seeks possession in the court, and, fourthly, the court is satisfied that any of the circumstances specified in Section 80(a) to (d) obtains, the court may direct that the notice shall expire on a date determined by itself. If a court does this it will be able to exercise its existing power to grant an order for possession. The court will be empowered—not required—to terminate the notice to quit and make the order, so that the
    560
    judge will not be bound to grant possession if the allegations against the tenant, though true, are of a trivial nature.
    Subsection (2) extends Section 106 of the Rent Act, which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules for courts in their discharge of the provisions of the Act, to enable him to make rules for the discharge of this new power.
    In Committee I undertook to try to meet such a situation, which bears particularly harshly on the small landlord who perhaps owns only one or two properties—a landlord who has lettings in his own owner-occupied premises. When I first gave the undertaking I had doubts whether we would be able to draft an appropriate clause in time for Report, but I am glad to have been able, with the help of my officials, to fulfil the undertaking I gave in Committee.
    Mr. Hugh Rossi: New Clause 8 appears on the Notice Paper to preserve in some form the position arrived at in Committee when, after some discussion in the early hours of the morning, the Minister conceded that the Opposition had made out a valid case and that there was a need to amend the law.
    The Opposition do not have the advantage of the services of the parliamentary draftsmen. The new clause was tabled merely to preserve the position and so that there was a form of words on the Notice Paper to ensure that the matter would be discussed fully on Report.
    I am very grateful to the Minister for the attitude he has taken despite all the difficulties of pressure of work on the lawyers in his Department and on the parliamentary draftsmen who have been able to produce a new clause which meets the case we made in Committee.
    Following many representations received, we were concerned about the great feeling of injustice that existed throughout the country when landlords had a had tenant in their accommodation who was not paying rent for a considerable period, or was causing damage to the premises or the furniture, or was acting in a thoroughly anti-social manner and harassing other tenants and, sometimes, the landlord if he happened to live in the same house.

    561
    7 p.m.
    That was a totally undesirable situation because, inevitably, it meant that magistrates' courts were troubled by cases and complaints of assault and battery when conditions became intolerable. The position was aggravated because it was possible for a tenant to go to a rent tribunal. Automatically he sensed that the landlord was seeking to apply to a county court for a possession order, and by going to the rent tribunal he could obtain security of tenure, in the first instance, of up to six months, which could theoretically be renewed indefinitely for further periods of six months.
    That led to a great feeling of injustice, and the Opposition felt it only right that where a genuine grievance existed on the matters I have mentioned the landlord should have a right to go immediately to the county court, and, if the issue between him and the tenant were of nonpayment of rent, anti-social behaviour or damaged property be dealt with there and then without the artificial and unnecessary delays of a rent tribunal procedure.
    I am grateful to the Minister for having acceded to this request. Under the clause landlords faced with bad tenants can go straight to the county court and have the judge decide the issue on its merits. If the landlord succeeds in persuading the judge that the tenant is bad he will obtain his possession order without undue delay.
    I am grateful that the Minister has indicated in subsection (2) that the Lord Chancellor will be able to make representations about county court procedure, and it is hoped that he will bring forward a means of expediting legal procedure in the county court so that the issue can be tried without a great deal of delay as to procedure and pleadings between the parties. We look forward to seeing what regulations are produced for this expedited procedure, possibly equivalent to Order 14 proceedings in the High Court.
    There is one point on which the Minister might help me. It is a minor point but it should be put straight for the record. In subsection (1)(d) there is a reference to paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section 80 of the 1968 Rent Act. Section
    562
    80 contains only paragraphs (a) (b) and (c). Para. (d) must have been put in by subsequent legislation—possibly by this Bill. I have been unable to put my finger on the precise reference and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain so that everyone knows exactly where to find paragraph (d) in the future.
    Mr. Peter Emery: I congratulate the Minister on the new clause. There are instances where landlords have experienced great difficulty in getting possession of a property from a bad tenant. No landlord would want to get rid of a good tenant, because the whole basis of his operation is to accommodate the best tenants possible. I have had incidents brought to my attention by people living in London in which there was a month's delay in a rent tribunal hearing an application by a bad tenant. The rent tribunal first gave six months' security of tenure to the tenant, the second security of tenure was for another six months and on the third occasions the tribunal gave security of tenure for two months. The tenant finally left about 24 hours before expiry of this last period, owing two months' rent and having turned the flat into a complete shambles.
    In accepting the need for the clause the Government have accepted that this sort of thing can happen and that not all tenants are good and not all landlords are bad, or vice versa. There is a certain amount of good and bad in both, and while the Bill is inclined to give most of the benefits to the tenant, the clause goes some way to rectifying the deficiency in the situation concerning the bad tenant so that the facts can be proved more rapidly and possession obtained reasonably quickly.
    Sir John Eden: On a number of occasions I have pressed the need for changes of this kind on behalf of my constituents. In Bournemouth there are a mass of what we have come to call small private landlords, and because of that this issue has become a considerable problem. In a way this is partly due to the holiday nature of the town and people have been in the habit of coming into Bournemouth for a comparatively short stay. I am not clear whether the clause meets the case of the short-term winter letting where the tenant

    563
    agrees to stay for so long but subsequently decides to protract his stay and remains on into the summer, when the owner could have been committed to letting the property at a much higher rate to someone else.
    If the tenant in these circumstances is able to overstay, even by a comparatively short period, the time to which he had originally contracted, it would cause considerable hardship and loss of earnings to the landlord. The incident could affect subsequent lettings even into the following year, because the landlord would have suffered loss of good will through not being able to honour the summer holiday letting.
    Mr. Emery: May I suggest that my right hon. Friend does not use the word "landlord" in these circumstances? In my constituency I have experienced much the same problem. These landlords are running businesses for holiday lettings, and in order to assist the housing situation they are willing to go in for winter letting which would not normally be allowed if they could not get vacant possession. These are not landlords in the normal sense. They are running a business, but they are willing to help out during the winter by making their businesses available.
    Sir J. Eden: I was using the term "landlord" for shorthand purposes, but my hon. Friend is correct. There are many instances where the owner of this type of premises lets rooms in the summer holiday period and helps out for families with short-term requirements for the winter months. It is regrettable—in some cases for perfectly understandable reasons on the part of the individuals concerned—if subsequently this arrangement is abused. I hope the clause will end that abuse. I was seeking to ask the Minister for information on that point, and if he can confirm my hopes I welcome the clause. It is certainly a long overdue provision which is especially valuable for landlords confronted with the circumstances my hon. Friend has described so that they can turn directly to the county courts. I am sure it is right that this is so and I express my appreciation of the Minister. I express my thanks to my hon. Friends who pressed the case so effectively in Committee.
    Mr. Freeson: Paragraph (d) was introduced by Amendment No. 13 in Committee.
    The amendment has no relevance to winter lettings, which are covered by Case 10(b) in the main Act. I do not think that it is appropriate or necessary for me to go into detail about that. The point the right hon. Gentleman has just made is covered by Case 10(b) as a ground for possession on application to the county court.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 12

    RENT ALLOWANCES
    "(1) On and after such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, so much of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (rent rebates and rent allowances) as requires that, in order to qualify for an allowance, a person occupying a dwelling under a Part VI letting must be a qualified person, within the meaning of section 19(12) of that Act, shall cease to have effect.
    (2) The proviso to subsection (1) of section 25 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (which, in the case of certain furnished lettings, determines the rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance for the purposes of Schedule 3 to that Act) shall cease to have effect on the commencement date.
    (3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, in the case of a person who immediately before the commencement date was a tenant under a Part VI letting, the provisions of subsection (4) below shall apply if, for an allowance period which was current on or ended immediately before the commencement date, the tenant was entitled to an allowance towards the rent payable under the Part VI letting and, in calculating that allowance for the last week of that period which ended before the commencement date, the rent which, for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Housing Finance Act 1972, was eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance was that determined under paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 25(1) of that Act (the occupational element of the rent or of the residue of the rent plus 25 per cent.).
    (4) If, by virtue of subsection (3) above, this subsection applies in relation to a tenant, then, subject to subsection (5) below, on and after the commencement date, if and so long as—

    (a) the tenant continues to occupy as his home the dwelling to which, immediately before that date, the Part VI letting referred to in subsection (3) above applied, and

    (b) the tenant continues to be entitled to an allowance towards the rent payable by him for that dwelling, and

    565

    (c) that rent continues to include payment for the use of furniture,

    the rent which, for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Housing Finance Act 1972, is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance shall, in his case, be the amount of the rent which was so eligible for the week mentioned in subsection (3) above (in this section referred to as "the former eligible rent").
    (5) If, for any week of an allowance period when, apart from this subsection, subsection (4) above would apply in relation to a tenant, that subsection shall cease to apply if—

    (a) the amount determined under section 25(1) of the Housing Finance Act 1972 as the rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance exceeds the former eligible rent, or

    (b) the rent recoverable from the tenant, exclusive of any part thereof attributable to rates, is less than the former eligible rent, or

    (c) part of the dwelling is sub-let and the former eligible rent either did not take account of the occupational element of any rent payable by a sub-tenant or took account of such an element which is less than the occupational element of the rent payable for that week by the sub-tenant,

    and, accordingly, from the beginning of that week the rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance shall be that determined as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
    (6) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 after the words "of the rent" there shall be inserted, in substitution for the words there inserted by paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973, the words "(or if, in the case of an allowance, any amount falls to be deducted by virtue of paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to this Act, the occupational element of the residue of the rent remaining after deducting those amounts)".
    (7) Subsections (2) and (3) of the said section 25 shall be amended as follows:
    (a) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "and
    (c) less, in the case of an allowance, any amount which, in the case of the tenant concerned, is prescribed as a deduction by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) below"; and
    (b) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be added the words "and
    (c) prescribe deductions from rent for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above in the case of tenants of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations who are for the time being in receipt of awards or grants under any provision of sections 1 to 3 of the Education Act 1962 or any other award or grant which is paid out of money provided by Parliament and is determined by the Secretary of State to be an analogous award or grant, and different provision may be made by virtue of paragraph (c) above in relation to different periods and different classes of awards or grants".
    (8) In subsection (1) of section 26 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (interpretation of Part II) in the definition of "tenant" after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
    "(d) a person who is treated as a private tenant under a Part VI letting by virtue of subsection (8A) of section 19 of this Act".
    (9) The said section 26 shall apply in relation to subsections (1) to (5) above as if those subsections were included in Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and, without prejudice to the application of that section, the reference in subsection (3) above to a tenant under a Part VI letting includes a reference to a person who is treated as if he were a private tenant under a Part VI letting by virtue of section 19(8A) of that Act and any reference in that subsection or subsection (4) above to a Part VI letting means, in relation to a person who is so treated, the letting referred to in the said section 19(8A)".—[Mr. Freeson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With the new clause we are to discuss Government new Clause 14—Rent allowances in Scotland—and Government Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 40, 53, 37, 38, 39 and 41.
    Mr. Freeson: New Clause 14 is the Scottish equivalent to new Clause 12, and it will be covered by what I say about that clause. All the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 53, are consequential.
    The main purpose of the new clause is to bring the present provisions relating to eligibility for a rent allowance in respect of furnished tenants into line with those for unfurnished tenants, as we are in effect, from this Bill onwards, treating furnished tenants, as being in the same position in law as unfurnished tenants.
    Under present legislation the rent allowance scheme has different criteria of eligibility according to whether the applicant for a rent allowance is a protected or statutory tenant under the Rent Act—broadly, a tenant of unfurnished accommodation—or whether he is a Part VI contract holder under the same Act—broadly, a tenant of a furnished letting. The main difference lies in the requirement under the Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973 that the "furnished" tenant not only has to be a Part VI contract holder, but also has to be a "qualified person".
    A "qualified person" is either a person falling within a category specified by the

    567
    Secretary of State by regulations or else a person whom a local authority considers would suffer hardship if he were not granted an allowance. Under the previous Administration, the categories of qualifying persons were prescribed as those Part VI contract holders who were pensioners, or had a pensioner living in the household, handicapped persons, those with a dependent child, or persons aged 30 or over. There are also residential qualifications for some of these categories varying from three to six months. The result is that most Part VI contract holders below 30 years are not qualified persons, and so are ineligible for a rent allowance.
    7.15 p.m.
    However, the Bill creates a new borderline between tenancies receiving full Rent Act protection and Part VI contract holders, based mainly on whether there is an absentee or resident landlord. Most existing Part VI contract holders600,000—odd out of over 700,000—nationally will become protected tenants. As a result they will become eligible for rent allowances under the existing provisions for such tenants since the "qualified person" criterion will no longer apply to them. But, unless some change is made, the remaining Part VI contract holders will still have to be qualified persons before they are eligible for rent allowances.
    The Government consider that it is no longer right or defensible to preserve this difference in eligibility for rent allowances. The distinction between accommodation with a resident landlord and accommodation with an absentee landlord is necessary for the purposes of security of tenure but inappropriate for the purposes of rent allowances. If no change were made it would be possible for similar tenants of comparable accommodation to have different eligibilities for rent allowances.
    Accordingly, this clause will abolish the "qualified person" requirement for Part VI contract holders—furnished tenants—and assimilate eligibility for rent allowances for all private tenants. Thus it is a measure both lifting certain restrictions and simplifying the rent allowance scheme.
    568
    Another difference between the arrangements for rent allowances for furnished and unfurnished tenants is that in certain circumstances in the case of a furnished letting the rent which is eligible to be met by an allowance may be increased by a quarter compared with the eligible rent in the case of an unfurnished letting. This 25 per cent. markup was introduced to take account of the increased management costs for furnished accommodation compared to those of unfurnished accommodation. The transfer of most Part VI lettings to regulated tenancies will mean that the tenants concerned will no longer be eligible for this mark-up. Moreover, to retain it for the remaining Part VI contract holders would result in different allowances for comparable dwellings solely because of the residence of the landlord. So this difference, too, is removed by the clause, with a saving for those already receiving it.
    One of the consequences of the removal of the "qualified person" requirement will be that for the first time most students under the age of 30 who are also tenants will be eligible for rent allowances. The Government consider that it would not be justifiable to make rent allowances available on the normal basis to students also in receipt of assistance from public funds, their grant sources, towards their rent. The clause therefore provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe deductions to be made to the rent eligible to be met by an allowance in the case of students in receipt of awards or grants from public funds which cover a rent allowance within the total grant allowed.
    The clause is required as a consequence of the fundamental changes in the Rent Act structure on which the legislation on rent allowances was based. We have had, as it were, to rethink the rent allowance scheme as a consequence of the Bill and that is why, regrettably, these proposals have been laid before the House at this late stage in its passage.
    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I thank the Minister for his explanation. Having read the clause, I do not fully understand it. It is very lengthy. I think that in general it says that tenants of

    569
    furnished accommodation are just as eligible for rent allowances as tenants of unfurnished accommodation have been. Under our legislation, most tenants of furnished accommodation were eligible, except those under 30 who had no people dependent upon them. Has the Minister made an estimate of the cost of the extension of rent allowances in this way?
    Secondly, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a little more about the position of students. I understand from subsection (7) that the Minister will make regulations designed to prevent the overlap of financial assistance. But the position of students is not exactly simple in relation to financial assistance. Perhaps only a minority of students receive the full grant. The rest receive a reduced grant which should be supplemented by parental contribution.
    Two factors arise here. First, even if one receives the full grant, it is not specifically apportioned as between rent, books, food and so on. There is only a notional apportionment, so we cannot identify the proportion of the full grant which is available for rent. That will make a difficulty when we calculate on the basis of overlapping financial provisions.
    Secondly, what happens to the student who is entitled by virtue of the regulations to a substantial parental contribution? Supposing he receives only £150 in grant and that the rest is due to be paid by parental contribution? Let us suppose that that contribution is not forthcoming. Despite all the circumstances, are we to deem it as forthcoming?
    Another point is the actual rent for furnished accommodation that a student will pay. That will depend upon how many people share the accommodation. As the Minister knows, many students prefer to rent houses and flats on their own. They sometimes get five or six other students in a house to share the accommodation. Supposing that they reduce the number from, for example, five persons to three persons. Each of them will thereby pay more rent. What account will be taken of that in the regulations? I mention that only because I have occasion to know the complexities attaching to students' grants,
    570
    particularly when the student relies upon a parental contribution.
    If we are to have the regulations it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate in a little more detail what they are likely to contain. If they are not clear, there is bound to be trouble in the student world.
    Mr. Rossi: I understand that the Minister is waiting for some information on the matters that have been put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). In the meantime, I ask him about a matter arising out of his previous explanation that I did not quite follow.
    The Minister made reference to a 25 per cent. mark-up. I think that those were the words that he used. I took that to mean that the tenants of furnished accommodation received an allowance 25 per cent. higher than tenants of unfurnished accommodation. Presumably that is because furnished accommodation is more expensive than unfurnished accommodation.
    Are we to understand from the fact that the mark-up of 25 per cent. will be obviated—that is what I understood the Minister to say in terms—that in future he anticipates rent officers fixing rents for furnished accommodation at about the same level as rents for unfurnished accommodation other than the part of the rent relating to furniture? I cannot see any other reason for wanting to deprive tenants of furnished accommodation of the 25 per cent. mark-up. I may have misunderstood the Minister, and perhaps when he replies to my right hon. Friend he will be able to deal with the matter that I have raised.
    Mr. Freeson: I think that I can satisfy the right hon. Lady. Initially it is proposed to prescribe a deduction of £4 a week, which broadly reflects the notional element for rent. The right hon. Lady rightly used the word "notional". With the right hon. Lady's background, this is a matter on which she probably has expert knowledge. The deduction of £4 a week, as I have said, broadly reflects the notional element for rent in the new rates of awards from September 1974.
    It is important for me to stress that the deduction will be based on a notional

    571
    element since the Department of Education and Science, does not break down student grants into specific elements. That is why there is the reference to notional sums.
    I now turn to the position of those students—there are many of them—who receive a parental contribution. The point is covered because the deduction is based upon a notional figure which can be variable under the regulations. That is how we intend to start. It will be based upon the total grant—namely, the State contribution and the parental grant. If that were not so it would have a regressive effect, as the right hon. Lady will be quick to appreciate. I think that that covers the main point.
    I do not have an estimate for this provision but we believe that the total take-up of these grants will be absorbed into the total vote-head on allowances. Both under the last administration and under this administration the estimates which have been undertaken indicate that it has not been the experience that the rent allowances take-up has reached the ceilings that have been provided. I make no implied criticism of that. That is an understandable position. Any Government must make provision for the allowance that could be available but in practice is not taken up. I am certain from information that is available to me that the relatively small additional sum involved will be absorbed into the general vote-head.
    The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) referred to the mark-up. Before I come to that I should put it on record that we shall be embarking upon a further spate of publicity on rent allowance take-up, in the course of which we can pick up this point. We can seek to ensure that many more of those who are entitled to such allowances, whether under the clause or under the general provisions of the rent allowances, will take up the cash awards. They are the awards that are available, although only a small minority throughout the country has so far taken them up. We shall endeavour to improve on that my undertaking a publicity campaign.
    Subsection (2) provides for the abolition of the provision under which the eligible
    572
    rent may reflect the 25 per cent. mark-up Rent allowances and rebates are based on the occupational element of the rent. That is the rent net of any sums attributable to rates, services or furiture. Where no rent has been registered for a dwelling a local authority is required, under the present scheme, to arrive at the eligible rent by estimating what it thinks to be the fair rent by reference to information available from the local rent officer, but not by reference of the case to the rent officer. In the case of furnished dwellings, the estimated fair rent could be increased by a quarter provided that does not exceed the rent actually paid. To assimilate the arrangements for furnished and unfurnished accommodation, the 25 per cent. mark-up is being abolished for the reasons already explained. This change will come into force immediately on the commencement of the Act. Therefore, no new allowances for Part VI contract holders can be calculated on the basis of the 25 per cent. mark-up.
    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that once we move furnished accommodation into rent officer calculations we are moving away from the position in which local authorities have had to make their own estimates into a situation in which a totally fair rent is to be calculated, assessed, recommended and fixed by rent officers subject to appeal procedures.
    It is also necessary to take into account as a background fact the point that the hon. Gentleman frequently raised during the course of our proceedings. That position is implicit in the Docherty case. The hon. Gentleman will understand the point about the relatively residual element of value that can be attributed in most rents. We are now moving into a situation where the process will be by way of application and it will be difficult to operate a simple and direct scheme.
    For the reasons that I have described we are proceeding with these provisions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 13

    ADVANCE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A NEW RENT
    '(1) At the beginning of subsection (3) of section 44 of the Rent Act 1968 (no application for registration of a new rent until three years after a previous registration) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
    "(3A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) above, an application such as is mentioned in that subsection which is made by the landlord alone and is so made within the last three months of the period of three years referred to in that subsection may be entertained notwithstanding that that period has not expired."
    (2) At the beginning of subsection (1) of section 48 of that Act (effect of registration of rent) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1A) below" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
    "(1A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 44 above, an application is made before the expiry of the period of three years referred to in subsection (3) of that section, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the date of the application there were substituted a reference to the first day after the expiry of that period of three years."
    (3) At the beginning of subsection (3) of section 40 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (no application for registration of a new rent until three years after a previous registration) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below" and at end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
    "(3A) An application such as is mentioned in subsection (3) above which is made by the landlord alone and is so made within the last three months of the period of three years referred to in that subsection may be entertained before the expiry of that period, notwithstanding that the application is not made upon any of the grounds mentioned in that subsection."
    (4) At the beginning of subsection (1) of section 44 of the said Act of 1971 (effect of registration of rent) there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (1A) below" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
    "(1A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 40 above, an application is made before the expiry of the period of three years referred to in subsection (3) of that section, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the date of the application there were substituted a reference to the first day after the expiry of that period of three years"'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Brought up and read the First time.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause implements the principles of new Clause 4 which was moved by the Opposition and which we undertook to examine. Thereby the Francis Committee's recommendation was that landlords should be enabled to apply for review of registered fair rents three months before the expiry of the three-year review period, so that if the resulting re-registration is higher than the previous rent they may be entitled to an increase.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. James Allason: I declare an interest as a landlord and property manager. I had the honour of moving in Committee the amendment which has given rise to the new Clause.
    The new Clause will be of some help to landlords who are hard pressed at present. It means that they will be able to apply for a new rent to be assessed three months before the rent becomes effective. This should avoid delaying references to the rent assessment committee and will be of some benefit to landlords in a Bill which does so much to harm the position of the small landlord.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 14

    RENT ALLOWANCES IN SCOTLAND
    '(1) On and after such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, so much of section 16 of the Act of 1972 (rent allowances) as requires that, for certain persons to be or to be treated as private tenants, they must be qualified persons within the meaning of subsection (8) of that section, shall cease to have effect.
    (2) In paragraph 15(1)(g)(ii) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1972 (which provides that in ascertaining the amount of an allowance in respect of a furnished letting a certain amount of rent payable is to be disregarded), the words "125 per cent. Of" shall cease to have effect on the commencement date.
    (3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, in the case of a person who immediately before the commencement date was a tenant of a dwelling-house under a furnished letting, the provisions of subsection (4) below

    575
    shall apply if, for an allowance period which was current on or ended immediately before that date, the tenant was entitled to an allowance towards the rent payable under the furnished letting which was calculated, for the last week of that period which ended before that date, by reference to an amount of rent which, after making the deduction (if any) required by head (i) of paragraph 15(1)(g) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1972, was more than the estimated fair rent referred to in head (ii) of that paragraph but not more than 125 per cent. of that estimated fair rent.
    (4) If, by virtue of subsection (3) above, this subsection applies in relation to a tenant, then, if and so long as he continues on and after the commencement date to be—

    (a) a tenant of the same dwelling-house under the same letting (whether or not it continues to be a furnished letting), and

    (b) entitled to an allowance towards the rent under the letting concerned,

    the allowance shall be calculated by reference to the amount of rent referred to in subsection (3) above until—

    (i) the rent recoverable from the tenant for any week of an allowance period is less than the amount referred to in that subsection, or

    (ii) the amount of rent by reference to which, but for this subsection, the allowance for any such week would be calculated is higher than the amount referred to in subsection (3) above,

    whichever is the earlier; and as from the beginning of that week the allowance shall be calculated by reference to the amount of rent to which an authority would be entitled to have regard but for this subsection.
    (5) Paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1972 shall be amended as follows:
    (a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words "sub-paragraph (2) below" there shall be substituted the words "the following provisions of this paragraph";
    (b) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraphs—
    "(3) It shall be the duty of every authority, for the purpose of computing the amount of an allowance towards the rent payable by tenants of such classes as may be prescribed who are for the time being in receipt of—

    (a) an award or grant, being a bursary, scholarship or allowance granted under section 49(1) or 75(f) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, or

    (b) any other award or grant which is paid out of money provided by Parliament and is determined by the Secretary of State to be analogous to any such bursary, scholarship or allowance, to treat the rent as reduced by such amount as may be prescribed.

    (4) In sub-paragraph (3) above 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    576
    (5) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision in relation to different periods and different classes of awards or grants."
    (6) In this section "the Act of 1972" means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972; and section 22 of the Act of 1972 (interpretation of Part II of that Act) shall apply in relation to this section as if it were included in that part'.—[Mr. Freeson.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    AGREEMENTS AUTHORISED BY COURT NOT TO GIVE RISE TO PROTECTED TENANCIES
    'The Court may—

    (a) on the joint application of the persons who propose to be the landlord and the tenant of a dwelling-house in relation to a tenancy proposed to be granted for a term of years certain which would except for this section be a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act, authorise an agreement preventing the tenancy from being such a protected tenancy; and

    (b) on the joint application of the persons who are the landlord and the tenant of a dwellinghouse in relation to a tenancy which is a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act, authorise an agreement for the surrender of the tenancy and of the protection afforded to it by the Rent Act on such date or in such circumstances as may be specified in the agreement and on such terms (if any) as may be so specified'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    In Committee a fundamental issue emerged between the two sides. We believed that to place restrictions on the letting of property did reduce the availability of that class of property for letting. The Minister said that that was not proven, despite the figures, which relate particularly to the difference between availability of furnished and unfurnished lettings.
    Our efforts were directed to the proposition that if restrictions are necessary, as we admit in some cases they are, they should be designed so as not to force landlords to abandon the business of landlordism. In new Clause 3, we have taken a leaf out of the Law of Property Act 1969 where, as between the prospective landlord of business premises and the

    577
    prospective tenant of those premises, there is provision that they can go before the court and opt out of the restrictions so far as they relate to business premises, and upon the approval of the court to an agreement to contract out in that way.
    One must realise that it is wrong to assume that every tenant who is going to take a dwelling house on tenancy is acting under duress and should be allowed to escape from his contractual obligations because of the assumption that he took them on under some form of duress obliging him to do so. Normally, tenants are sophisticated people who know well enough whether they want to take advantage of the security of the Rent Act, or whether they are prepared to take on a property for a fixed period of years and vacate it at the end of that period.
    Even if one assumes that some of them are acting not under duress necessarily, in the legal definition, but under pressure, complete powers against that would be resort to the court. So, in new Clause 3, by copying the provision in the Law of Property Act 1969 as it relates to business premises, I wish to provide that if the two parties, in a joint application to the court, say, "Here is a willing landlord letting a dwelling house for a period, and a willing tenant to take it for that period," the court can itself approve the agreement and remove it from the restrictions of the Rent Act.
    The second part of a new Clause would give similar freedom to the parties, on a joint application to the court, to surrender a tenancy which otherwise has the protection of the Rent Act. This provision, I am informed, has worked very satisfactorily in the case of business premises.
    Originally, where business premises were protected in somewhat the same way as dwelling houses under the Rent Act, there was no possibility of opting out of the Act. If the tenancy included a provision that the protection of business tenancies should not apply, that was invalid. In 1969, the situation was altered. Since then, the courts have found no difficulty in deciding whether, when the two parties come before them, it is a case in which there would be no hardship on the tenant to remove that agreement between the parties from the restrictions applying to business premises.
    578
    I asked in the new clause that the same sort of principle should apply as between consenting parties to a tenancy of a dwelling house. I am sure that this draws much closer together the two sides of what I describe as the fundamental issue between us. We recognise here in the clause that the protection of certain classes of tenant is very necessary. We say that it is not needed for every tenant. At the same time, we give a freedom to the landlord to seek the approval of the court, with the consent of the prospective tenant, for removal of the restrictions. I am convinced that by this means we shall make available more property for letting, and that will benefit the tenants in the end more than placing an absolute irremovable restriction on these agreements.
    Sir Marcus Worsley: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I declare an interest as an owner of some rented property. The case I want to adduce in his support is the situation in my constituency to which a lot of people come who, for one reason or another, need to come to London to do a job for a short time—say, two or three years—and then move away. As a result of the Bill, such people will find accommodation in London profoundly difficult to find.
    They will not be able to get local authority accommodation. Sometimes I have been led to think that they will have to move from one holiday letting to another. These may be people who have perfectly adequate incomes and are doing an important job. Why on earth should they not be able to go to a landlord, come to an agreement with him mutually convenient to both sides, go to the court and have it registered? The case for doing this is very important.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) put similar proposals in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said that this was all going to be done by the local authorities. He said that he wanted to see the whole of the private rented sector disappear and all this provision made by local authorities.
    The sort of people I am talking about will never be cared for by the local authorities. I suspect that the effect of this Bill, like so much done by the present Government, will be once more to make

    579
    conditions more difficult for the middle class. It is for the middle class, who can afford a good rent and whom a landlord would like as tenants, that this sort of exception would be very useful indeed.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I shall be brief, even though the new clause is tremendously important. The Bill may be a charter for the furnished tenant, but it is also a charter for homelessness among many other tenants. The purpose of the Bill can be stated in a sentence—it is to protect the furnished tenant in the stress areas because the furnished tenancy is his home. There should not be included provisions for furnished accommodation for the transient population who have an equally dire need for accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir M. Worsley) has several thousands of people in his constituency who need transient accommodation. They comprise newlyweds, typists, overseas visitors and businessmen who have to stay for a period in London or many other major cities.
    Such people require genuine furnished accommodation, often of the executive type, but it is unnecessary to provide protection for them if they do not seek it in the first place. An advantage of the new clause—which is new from anything we discussed over many protracted hours upstairs—is that it provides that if a landlord and tenant of the type of accommodation I have envisaged agree together that they do not want to be protected by the Rent Act they should be allowed to file an application in a court agreeing that for the period of the tenancy, which should be a fixed term, they will opt out of the general provisions of the Bill.
    This type of clause does not imperil the purposes which the Labour Government have in mind in protecting the furnished tenant in the stress areas, but at the same time it excludes, by consent, persons who do not want to come under the terms of that protection. I hope that the Government will show good will and agree to such an exclusion. We have tried other methods in the past, but what is now proposed is an admirable way of achieving the objective of retaining executive accommodation in the main cities. Such accommodation is badly needed.
    580
    The need in the Metropolis and other major cities is as desperate as for other types of accommodation.
    A provision of the sort proposed will act as a brake and ensure that there is a pool of accommodation, outside the type which Shelter and other organisations have been talking about, in respect of which there will be security of tenure for the type of tenant who makes a permanent home of his tenancy.
    Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: I declare an interest as a tenant of rented accommodation and as a director of companies which own property for residential purposes incidental to their main operation. I am also an associate of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. I support the new clause. It could, in a small though relatively worthwhile way, help to make available accommodation which might not otherwise be available to tenants. I particularly support paragraph (a) because it cannot affect any existing tenant, and for a future tenant it provides the security of being able to go before a court so that the matter can be inquired into before it is decided not to grant protection to the tenancy concerned.
    7.45 p.m.
    The clause could encourage the availability of two types of property which would not otherwise be available, namely, those which, were they agricultural tenancies would come under Schedule 2, Part III, Case 12, but might be tenancies of property required for business purposes at a future date, of which the owner wishes to retain availability in case he should require it for a tenant in connection with his business. He would not be prepared to let unless he could be assured that he could get possession when required.
    The second type of property which was discussed at some length in Committee and which is referred to in a number of other amendments is that which is subject to possible redevelopment and might be held empty pending the determination of an outstanding planning application or an appeal—which may take a long time—and again not be available to residential tenants unless the owners could be certain of obtaining repossession.
    Under the proposals prospective tenants, like prospective landlords, would have

    581
    the benefit of being able to appear before a court and the court would be able to inquire into the matter to ensure that it was genuine. I hope hat the new clause will commend itself to the Government.
    Mr. Tyler: At first sight this is an attractive new clause, but the protection is superficial when it is put in the context of the considerable housing stresses and strains existing at present. I have some sympathy with the aim of the clause, but I am concerned about the timing in bringing it forward now. It is unfortunate that the main Opposition did not introduce it in Committee, because we could then have had a useful extended debate on its principle—
    Mr. Rossi: I thought that one of the criticisms made of us in Committee was that we had too many extended debates. We have reserved some matters for this stage because it was not possible to carry on with them in Committee.
    Mr. Tyler: That demonstrates the fact that giving way to interventions is not always helpful. The clause represents a major departure, unlike many of the amendments considered at considerable length upstairs. It is important that we discuss it this evening, and to that extent I am glad that it is now being brought forward.
    We are considering the Bill in an imperfect world. If it were a perfect world, detailed rent legislation would not be necessary for landlords and tenants. It would be totally unnecessary to introduce this sort of legislation.
    However, I can imagine circumstances in my constituency, just as much as in major urban constituencies involving the sort of pressures that could be put on a tenant if such a provision was in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to duress, but it would probably be persuasion that would be involved. I can imagine how persuasive that persuasion could be. A landlord could tell a prospective tenant, "We do not want to go through all the procedure of rent appeals. Let us get together and see if we can come to an amicable arrangement and save ourselves a lot of bother as well as legal fees". The landlord might even suggest that he would not ask for quite so much rent if he and the tenant decided to make a joint
    582
    application to the court with a view to avoiding the restrictions of the Rent Act. That would be an extremely attractive prospect for tenants in areas of considerable housing shortage.
    My doubt is that by making such provision we shall be giving an opportunity for the landlord—perhaps an unscrupulous landlord, or a lazy landlord, or merely a landlord with an eye to the main chance—to put the prospective tenant in an invidious position. Persuasive powers, along with the lack of accommodation in a particular area, and ever-rising costs, could provide a way out of rent legislation which we in the House feel is genuinely necessary.
    The right hon. Member for Crosby who introduced the clause referred to the precedent of business rents. I acknowledge that it is a perfectly good precedent to use in debating terms. It is as well that we should pause and contrast the different circumstances. The business tenant is not, as a rule, put in the extraordinarily invidious position of the prospective tenant in an area of considerable housing need. It is for that reason that the law, in 1969, was able to grant that sort of provision to the business tenant.
    At the same time, if the pressures are different, certainly the parties are different. We can imagine the circumstance when a tenant who might not know the law—and, goodness knows, this sort of law is not easy to understand—and who might not be aware of the full significance of going to the court with a joint application, would do so and sign away his rights. This clause is attractive, but the attraction is superficial. I suspect that the Minister will feel the same.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I rise to make a brief "maiden" speech about this Bill. I was not a member of the Committee, and I was not in the country at the time of Second Reading.
    I urge this clause upon the House. I heard what the hon. Gentleman for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) said. He stressed the shortage of accommodation. He must be aware that this Bill will drastically reduce the amount of rented accommodation, and anything that can be done to ameliorate the debilitating effects of this Bill in relation to the provision of further furnished accommodation needs the support of this House.

    583
    It is regrettable that the Bill is before us at all. It is a Bill which will drastically increase homelessness in this country. Since the Minister is well known for his humanitarian and progressive views, I would have thought that he would have felt it would be right to allow at least one small sector of the housing market to operate by agreement. Without agreement there will be no more rented accommodation. If landlords are to let under duress, which is the consequence of this Bill, landlords will find any means they can to cease letting and come out of the market.
    As the Minister knows perfectly well, the housing authorities can never possibly cope with the consequences. It is a very good clause and it will enable the landlord and tenant who are able to do business together to enter into a contract with obviously beneficial effects on confidence.
    It is confidence which is sorely lacking as a result of the Government's activities. At a time of accelerating inflation, the temptation in the minds of small men to do damage to those who provide, to mitigate the apparent effects of inflation by confiscating their emoluments is extremely damaging to the supply. If we have shortages in the future, major shortages, particularly of housing, it is perhaps the most cruel possible consequence of inflation. We must try to get above the sentiments whereby we think it is necessary on all occasions to "do in" all those who provide.
    One of the historical and inevitable consequences of hyper-inflation is that provision ceases and the shortages which develop cause severe hardship to those seeking accommodation.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument. I was wondering whether to help me follow it wholly, he can explain how he reconciles with this thesis the fact that after the 1957 Act, which removed security of tenure, there was a sharp reduction in the number of properties available for letting?
    Mr. Ridley: I must confess that the Labour Party has always been with us. So long as it insists on remaining with us and talking nonsense we are liable to get a debilitating effect on the housing market.
    584
    I do not know whether I should wander in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he will know that rent restriction has been with us since the first world war. My father carried out a report into the debilitating effects of rent restriction in about the year the hon. Member mentioned, 1955 I think it was. In that report he rightly recommended the total abolition of rent restriction—advice which has not yet been heeded. One of the things I am pleading for, and apparently the hon. Gentleman is deaf, is that he should put away his blind prejudice. He should cease to believe that landlords have horns and that tenants are, on all occasions, angels. He should realise that what benefits would-be tenants is a continuing provision of housing accommodation.
    If the clause were only to stop 100 units from going out of existence I feel the Minister would agree with me that it would have done something to meet the difficulties of those poor people who are seeking rented accommodation and may not be able to get it.
    Mr. Freeson: I take it, if the views of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) represent the views of the Opposition, that we must assume that it is Conservative Party policy not only to repeal this measure when it is enacted—if the Conservatives get back into power in due time—but also to seek to repeal the Rent Act 1968, which covers a much wider area of housing accommodation than this Bill. I see the hon. Members opposite nodding. I am interested to have it confirmed that there is at least a reasonable proportion of Conservative Members who support those views and would apply them to the 1968 Act, which, of course, the last administration had every opportunity to repeal while they were in office for three-and-a-half years.
    Since it was introduced to try to cancel out the effect of the then Conservative Government's Rent Act of 1957, which decontrolled the market pretty rapidly and produced the biggest slump in the provision of rented accommodation that the country has seen, the country will find this interesting.
    Before I deal with the clause I must express my continued astonishment at the way in which Tory Members, in arguing

    585
    this kind of clause—and we have had several arguments on this issue in Committee—present the argument as if the introduction of this measure will compel people who wish to be on the move to stay where they are now. There is no such proposition in the Bill any more than there was such a proposition in the 1968 Act, which gave statutory security of tenure to the majority of unfurnished tenants throughout the country.
    We must distinguish between different kinds of transient tenants. Broadly speaking they fall into two kinds—those who move voluntarily because their jobs or their desires take them somewhere else, to other accommodation, other towns or other parts of the city, and who then just voluntarily cease their tenancies and move on, and those many others who are compulsory transients, who have no security and are required to leave their tenancies. This Bill gives the opportunity to those who would be required to move on to stay, subject to the ruling of the court. Surely there is nothing better than that to create a proper balance in law between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant—as we have done in the 1968 Act.
    I am astonished that we should get this kind of argument each time this type of amendment is presented. Hon. Members suggest that the Bill will compel people to stay where they are and that their amendments will enable them to move around. No one is preventing them from moving. What we are trying to do is to introduce into legislation, as we did in the 1968 Act, the right to stay in certain circumstances when tenants wish to stay and when they would otherwise—and this is often the case at present—be compelled to move.
    8.0 p.m.
    That leads me to the label given to the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). He said that we had virtually described the Bill as a charter for furnished tenants. The hon. and learned Gentleman described it additionally as a charter for homelessness. It is clear that he has not been in touch with the large number of housing experts, directors of housing and social welfare departments in our big cities, particularly in the London area, who have been saying for a long time that the biggest single cause of homelessness
    586
    which they have to tackle is insecurity for the vast majority of furnished tenants in most of the stress areas. That is what is said by people who have to deal with the human and physical problems connected with the eviction of families.
    The Bill is not a charter for homelessness; it is the very reverse. If one had to give it a label, I would say that it was a charter for better landlord-tenant relationships.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the Minister seriously think that the Bill will make one more furnished house available? What should I say to a constituent who says "I want to let my house for a short time. How can I regain possession?".
    Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Bill, he may be in a better position—[Interruption.] We now have the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), our housing expert on the benches opposite, interrupting from a sedentary position, as is his usual practice.
    The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West will find set out in the Bill the situations in which people may seek to let on short lettings, which I gather is the matter about which he is concerned. There are powers to go to the court and obtain possession in such short letting situations. It is referred to as Case 10B.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with part of what the Minister says, but the important factor is this. The hon. Gentleman said that it was in the stress areas where there was difficulty about homelessness in which the Bill would give security of tenure. We are not here dealing with stress areas. We seek to exclude this class of tenancy all over the country because it does not fall within the matter about which there is cause for complaint.
    Mr. Freeson: We are concerned to establish rights to stay within the law for all tenants in circumstances of this kind. We are not trying to establish geographical divisions between one part of the country and another in relation to tenancy rights, any more than was done under the Rent Act 1968.
    The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the Law of Property Act 1969 as being the basis for his proposal.

    587
    The situation of residential tenants cannot be regarded as analogous to that of business tenants. It never has been right, in my view, to put them in the same class. For business tenants, rented accommodation is neither generally in short supply, as it is for residential tenants, nor is it—and this is the most important point—the necessity of life for families which residential accommodation is in any town or city. It is not right to compare the two in dealing with this issue.
    Mr. Graham Page: It is the necessity of life when dealing with business premises where the goodwill is concerned and the tenant may have taken from him the living for which he has worked for years and for which he has saved. It is just as important, and the point is almost exactly the same in parallel.
    Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Gentleman has rather reversed his position. He has quoted, quite rightly, the position of a small business which constitutes the livelihood of the people concerned who could, in certain circumstances, have it taken from them at the end of the tenancy. What the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward in his proposal is not that situation but a procedure whereby people may jointly contract out—in this case contract out of the Rent Bill.
    The clause would empower the court, which is unspecified, to authorise the exclusion of the tenancy concerned from Rent Act protection. The power would arise, first, where the grant of a fixed term tenancy was proposed and the intending landlord and tenant jointly applied for its exclusion; and, secondly, where the landlord and the tenant have agreed that the tenancy and the protection afforded to it by the Rent Act are to be surrendered on a date or in circumstances or on terms specified in the agreement and apply for authorisation of the surrender of the tenancy and the protection.
    This is clearly an attempt to provide for contracting out of the legislation subject to the authority of the court. It could be acceptable to those who reject the concept of legislation of this kind—a view with which I disagree but which I can respect, and, even if it was not specifically stated, it is a view which I know the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury
    588
    takes on all aspects of the economy. Although I disagree with it, I know where the hon. Gentleman stands and I can respect his argument.
    But I do not accept that contracting out is acceptable if it leads to the court taking into account in exercising its discretionary power a joint agreement between tenants which would lead to the exclusion from the Bill of certain premises, particularly bearing in mind that there is nothing in the Bill to compel people to stay if they wish to move on, which is one of the main arguments put forward in support of the clause. There is merely a right in the Bill to stay subject to the legal process if the tenant has no desire to move and is complying with the terms of the agreement.
    There is and should be no contracting out of the Rent Acts. There is not under the Rent Act 1968, and I do not believe that it would be right under the Bill. The protection of the legislation should be available at all times to those who need it or who may need it unless a ground for possession is shown to exist and, in the exercise of its discretion, the county court holds it to be reasonable that the tenancy should end. The argument for paragraph (a) in the clause presumably is that it would encourage the supply of dwellings to let by private landlords. We have been over this ground time and again in Committee. The two sides of the House do not agree about it. I merely restate, without argument, the position I have taken in the past. It is a fairly moderate view which I do not argue strongly one way or the other. At the very least, there is no evidence to show that there has been a rise or fall in the number of rented dwellings available on the market according to whether there has been restrictive or decontrol legislation. There has been a steady loss for many years, and whatever legislation there has been on this score has not made much difference.
    It is much more difficult to see what justification may be advanced for paragraph (b), the objective of which is hard to understand. It seems to be entirely without clarity. There is nothing in the Rent Acts to prevent a tenant from surrendering his tenancy or from surrendering it on conditions which the landlord is willing to meet. If the tenant wishes to move on, there is nothing to compel

    589
    him to stay. Therefore, the general grounds upon which the case is argued are invalid in practice. The principle that a property should be contracted out in a particular case from a general protection under the Rent Acts which should be available to all, subject to the legal processes laid down in the Bill, is unacceptable.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I address my comments briefly to the clause which is before us. The Minister has achieved his main objective of ensuring that existing tenants have protection. He has taken no steps whatsoever to ensure that a future supply of accommodation is available. This we regard as extremely serious. In spite of what he says, under the Bill the supply of accommodation will dry up. The effect of controlling accommodation over the years has been to reduce the amount available for renting.
    The clause is an attempt to ensure that accommodation which would otherwise not be let will be let. The accommodation covered by the clause will not come on the market unless there is some possibility of contracting out of the Bill, for the simple and human reason, which I would expect the Minister to understand, that people are afraid that they will not be able to get possession of their own property when they need it.
    Several relevant cases were brought to my notice last week. One family had had a house left to them by their parents who had died. They wished to retain the house so that they or their children could eventually live in it. They could not afford to retain it unless they let it furnished because they were unable to afford the outgoings. They wrote to say that unless they could be sure of getting possession—and they cannot under the Bill—they
    would not let the house but would have to sell it.
    I know of other property being bought up for redevelopment. Nothing is more irritating than to see houses being bought, boarded up and taken out of use. The clause would enable those properties to be let. Unless we take action, this accommodation will not be available, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. That is why he will not face the clause and tries to deal with it by unsubstantiated assertions.
    8.15 p.m.
    The clause follows a precedent. The Minister said that earning a living was not like wanting a house. Unless a person earns a living he cannot afford a house. The drafting of the clause follows in almost every particular the drafting of the previous clause in the Socialist Law of Property Act 1969. I was going to say that the clause has a respectable ancestor, but I will refrain from doing so and say instead that it has a pale pink ancestor, but the pale pink of the past is the scarlet of today.
    The landlord and tenant could apply to the court and it is not mandatory upon the court to approve an agreement. The court has a discretion. What it is that makes the Minister think that the courts could not spot agreements arrived at under duress, when the courts have far more experience than we have, is a mystery.
    The Minister has taken no steps to ensure a supply of furnished accommodation, and we believe that we should vote upon this modest clause in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes, 235, Noes 262.

    Division No. 108.]

    AYES

    [8.17 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Channon, Paul

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Bray, Ronald

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Brewis, John

    Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Brittan, Leon

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Clegg, Walter

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Cockcroft, John

    Bell, Ronald

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

    Benyon, W.

    Buck, Antony

    Cope, John

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Budgen, Nick

    Cormack, Patrick

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Costain, A. P.

    Blaker, Peter

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Jessel, Toby

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Dixon, Piers

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Raison, Timothy

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rathbone, Tim

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Redmond, Robert

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Durant, Tony

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Kirk, Peter

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Emery, Peter

    Knox, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lamont, Norman

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Lane, David

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Farr, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Fell, Anthony

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Fidler, Michael

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Shersby, Michael

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Silvester, Fred

    Fox, Marcus

    Luce, Richard

    Sims, Roger

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

    MacArthur, Ian

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fry, Peter

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    MacGregor, John

    Spence, John

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    McLaren, Martin

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Sproat, Iain

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Stainton, Keith

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Madel, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Stanley, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marten, Neil

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mather, Carol

    Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Goodlad, A.

    Maude, Angus

    Stokes, John

    Gorst, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tebbit, Norman

    Gray, Hamish

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn Margaret

    Grieve, Percy

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Townsend, C. D.

    Grist, Ian

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Trotter, Neville

    Grylls, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Gurden, Harold

    Molyneaux, James

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hall, Sir John

    Money, Ernle

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Viggers, Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    Waddington, David

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Walker, Rt. He. Peter (Worcester)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mudd, David

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Heave, Alrey

    Wall, Patrick

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neubert, Michael

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Normanton, Tom

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Heseltine, Michael

    Nott, John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Hill, James A.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Holland, Philip

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Hordern, Peter

    Osborn, John

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hunt, John

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Mr. John Stradling Thomas and

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Percival, Ian

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

    James, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    NOES

    Archer, Peter

    Booth, Albert

    Cocks, Michael

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Coleman, Donald

    Ashley, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Ashton, Joe

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Atkins, Ronald

    Bradley, Tom

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Cronin, John

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&Sh'ditch)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

    Cryer, G. R.

    Baxter, William

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngtn, S & F sb'ry)

    Beith, A. J.

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Campbell, Ian

    Davidson, Arthur

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cant, R. B.

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Carter, Ray

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Boardman, H.

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    592

    593

    Deakins, Eric

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Robert, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Doig, Peter

    Judd, Frank

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rooker, J. W.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kelley, Richard

    Rose, Paul B.

    Dunn, James A.

    Kerr, Russell

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Rowlands, Edward

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sandelson, Neville

    Edge, Geoff

    Lamond, James

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Latham, Arthur (Cityof W' minster P'ton)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    English, Michael

    Lee, John

    Silverman, Julius

    Ennals, David

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Skinner, Dennis

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Small, William

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Snape, Peter

    Faulds, Andrew

    Loyden, Eddie

    Spearing, Nigel

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    MacCormick, Iain

    Steel, David

    Flannery, Martin

    McElhone, Frank

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McGuire, Michael

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Ford, Ben

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Stott, Roger

    Forrester, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Strang, Gavin

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Magee, Bryan

    Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Swain, Thomas

    Freud, Clement

    Marks, Kenneth

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marquand, David

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

    Tierney, Sydney

    George, Bruce

    Meacher, Michael

    Tinn, James

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Tomlinson, John

    Golding, John

    Mendelson, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mikardo, Ian

    Torney, Tom

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Millan, Bruce

    Tuck, Raphael

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Tyler, Paul

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

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

    Urwin, T. W.

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Molloy, William

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Moonman, Eric

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    Hamling, William

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Harper, Joseph

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Watkins, David

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Watt, Hamish

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Weitzman, David

    Hattersley, Roy

    Oakes, Gordon

    Wellbeloved, James

    Hatton, Frank

    Ogden, Eric

    White, James

    Heffer, Eric S.

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Whitlock, William

    Hooley, Frank

    Orbach, Maurice

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Horam, John

    Ovenden, John

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Padley, Walter

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge).

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Palmer, Arthur

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pardoe, John

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Hunter, Adam

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Woodall, Alec

    Jackson, Colin

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Woof, Robert

    Janner, Greville

    Prescott, John

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Radice, Giles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Reid, George

    Mr. J. D. Dormand and

    John, Brynmor

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Mr. Tom Cox.

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 4

    CERTAIN NEW LETTINGS OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION NOT TO BE PROTECTED
    'A tenancy granted after the commencement of this Act in respect of a dwellinghouse which has not been let on a residential tenancy within a period of seven years prior to the commencement of this Act shall not be a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act'.—[Mr. Rossi.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The clause relates to certain new lettings of residential accommodation not to be protected. It stems from the arguments which we tried to put forward on new Clause 3, on which we have just voted. The overriding anxiety of the Opposition is to try to achieve a situation whereby the maximum amount of accommodation possible comes forward to provide homes for the people. Faced with the situation of growing homelessness in the cities, faced also with countless people who live in unsatisfactory and overcrowded conditions in multi-occupation, we believe that it is vital to use every possible resource to help citizens who find themselves in those conditions.
    We discussed this matter in Committee and said that we could not contemplate a situation—a situation apparently contemplated by the Government—where people either were council tenants or owner occupiers because there was little else to be made available for them. In Committee we had the benefit of a survey carried out by Shelter in Islington. It was shown that in an area of extreme housing stress, with several hundred families living at a ratio of more than one and a half people per room, there were still a large number of rooms not used for housing purposes which could be so used. The survey also showed that, out of the total accommodation, there were 2,000 persons in the area and 2,400 rooms. In other words, in an area regarded by the local authority as one of extreme housing stress there was still a very large proportion of unused rooms which, if used, would have reduced the overcrowding considerably.
    8.30 p.m.
    Hon. Members have only to look round the districts of London and the cities outside
    596
    London to see that there is a great deal of accommodation, for example, over shops, which is unused for housing accommodation and which would be used for housing accommodation given certain circumstances. The owners of these shops are quite prepared to allow the rooms above them to be used for storage purposes or to dump a lot of rubbish that they do not need because they feel that, if and when the time comes that they wish to sell their businesses, they want to be able to sell with accommodation which the new proprietors of those shops can live in and therefore make the transactions far more attractive or again use for office, storage purposes, and so on.
    If the owner of such a shop knew that he could let that accommodation and have it back relatively easily, he would be encouraged to let it. At the moment, there is every disincentive in his way.
    Similarly, up and down the country there is a considerable amount of accommodation owned by elderly people. There are countless numbers of houses belonging to people whose families have grown up and left. Rooms and in some cases whole floors have become vacant. Again, that accommodation is not used for families looking desparately for somewhere to live because the elderly house owners fear the consequences of controls and that, if they let and they find themselves with objectionable tenants, they will not be able to get rid of them without a great legal process or that the rents which they might command would not make it sufficiently worth while to go to the trouble of allowing people into their homes.
    We feel that if a new clause of this kind were accepted by the House, there would be an encouragement to the kind of people that I have in mind to make available the accommodation that I have mentioned.
    The clause speaks of new lettings—that is, lettings taking place after the passing of the Bill. It also seeks as far as possible to define accommodation which has not been let before. The objective of the clause is to bring within the general pool of housing accommodation flats and rooms which would not otherwise be let. However, it is somewhat difficult to define accommodation that has not been let before. For example, how fat back does one have to go historically to show that

    597
    accommodation has never been let before? What legal proofs are available to show that never since a house was built has it or part of it been let?
    Faced with the difficulty of legal definition of that kind, we have hit upon a period of time which we believe to be fair and reasonable to the people concerned but long enough to prevent any abuse arising We have suggested a period of seven years. In other words, the accommodation which we propose to bring within the provisions of the clause must be accommodation that has not been let for a period of at least seven years prior to the commencement of the Bill, and then the first letting takes place after the passing of the Bill.
    We cannot believe that there is anyone who has deliberately been keeping property empty and not letting it for seven years purely in anticipation of the Opposition coming forward on 30th July 1974 to propose this clause. We feel that a period of as long as seven years is bound to avoid any possibility of abuse. What is more, the lack of any letting for at least seven years indicates a desire not to let.
    It is people with the desire not to let whom we wish to encourage to bring forward their accommodation on to the market and to remove all disincentives against them so doing. We feel that the only way that that can be done is by providing that any tenancies that are created where these circumstances arise shall not be protected by the Act. That is the only way that this vast pool of untapped accommodation can be brought forward to provide desperately needed housing for the homeless and those living in conditions of overcrowding and multi-occupation.
    I know that this concept does not recommend itself immediately to the Government, because it is within their philosophy to bring all privately rented property into public ownership. Therefore, anything that encourages the provision of private rented accommodation they are automatically opposed to. They also believe that the provision of rented accommodation must be made by the public sector. But I doubt whether, even with the best will in the world, the Government, through the public sector, will be able to deal with the urgent housing problems which exist in this country now.
    598
    I recall reading in my evening paper, I think today—it may have been yesterday—that the Greater London Council is now five years in arrears with its housing programme. It is in arrears with its housing programme and has no opportunity of catching up because of problems concerned with the acquisition of land—the cost factor, the delays in obtaining approval of plans through the various departments, the delays in then getting the building started, and all the rest of it.
    Local authority housing is a very slow creature at the best of times. We cannot afford to wait for that provision to provide for those who are in need now.
    Apart from that, there is the burden on public expenditure. We know from figures that we have already discussed that a £10,000 newly constructed council house costs the ratepayer and the taxpayer about £900 to £1,000 per annum in subsidy. In London the average cost of new construction and of acquisition under the municipalisation scheme is in the region of £15,000. Therefore, the moment that we start to consider making total provision out of the public sector for all the homeless and all people living in bad housing conditions, we are faced with an economic burden that the taxpayer and ratepayer, groaning as he is at the moment, will not be prepared to undertake.
    Therefore, it is absolutely necessary, if we wish to make immediate provision that does not impose intolerable burdens upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer, to look as far as we can to the private sector and to encourage the bringing forward of unused accommodation which is begging to be used, begging to be rented, if the owners had removed from them the disincentive which up till now has prevented them making that accommodation available.
    Mr. Kaufman: The speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was remarkable even by the standards that we have come to expect of him in advancing his case on the Bill. He repeated what he has said before, that he does not believe that the public sector can cope with the housing problem. He now adds to that the remarkable concept that he does not believe that the taxpayer is ready to make available the necessary revenue to deal with the housing problem.
    Mr. Rossi: Nor the ratepayer.
    Mr. Kaufman: I accept that; I include the ratepayer.
    That is an extraordinary statement. If events continue as some commentators say they may, I must warn the hon. Gentleman that I shall be ready to use the statement that he has made in the campaign which we may shortly be conducting, so that this party can continue its unimpeded progress towards majority rule—
    Mr. Rossi: Use the figures.
    Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly use the figures.
    We accept that to provide decent houses for our citizens will cost considerable sums, but the hon. Gentleman's alternative, that we should rely on some notional pool of furnished accommodation for which he can supply no statistics or for which none is available, is unacceptable to us.
    If we are to debate alternative housing programmes, with the Labour Party maintaining that the housing problem must be solved partly by making rented accommodation available in the public sector and partly by providing sufficient facilities for people to own their own houses and the Conservative Party saying that we should solve the problem by removing protection from tenants so that landlords will make such accommodation available, that is a controversy on which I am ready to confront the hon. Gentleman and his party at any time.
    Mr. Rossi: The Minister must not put words into my mouth. I did not speak of removing protection from tenants. I am speaking of accommodation which is not let and never will be let unless some incentive is given. That is an entirely different proposition. Those tenants not merely are irrelevant to the protection question: they will not have a home at all unless something is done to help them.
    Mr. Kaufman: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman was, of course, saying that the way to solve the housing problem is by adding to the rented stock accommodation for tenants who would have no protection. I do not think that I am now misrepresenting him, and I am still perfectly satisfied with the difference between our case and his.
    600
    The hon. Gentleman was fair. He said that we believed that the rented sector should be dealt with by what we like to call the "social landlord"—that is, mainly by local authorities but also by the voluntary housing associations. This, of course, excludes—this saving is explicitly included in the Bill—those people who share accommodation with a resident landlord. We have made a specific saving and have indeed extended it to the unfurnished tenant.
    The hon. Gentleman aptly told the House that his arguments had been rehearsed before. They were rehearsed earlier this evening and at considerable length in Committee. Hon. Members opposite used to groan with the tedium of it when I told them that these were matters of principle, even of ideology, on which we had to differ from them. They will have to groan again, because I have to tell them that our arguments on similar amendments and new clauses of theirs are arguments which it is necessary for me to repeat now. Even if it were true—there is no real reason to believe that it is true—that the kinds of exceptions from protection of the Bill were to prove a sufficient incentive to those who are not currently letting property, which to my mind is very doubtful, we on the Government side of the House insist that the incentive could be given only by leaving the tenants affected entirely at the mercy of landlords with regard to rent and security.
    This would be quite contrary to the principle of the Bill. It would be contrary to the philosophy held by the Government side of the House. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that his proposal is not acceptable to the Government.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mrs. Thatcher: This new clause is another attempt to ensure that there will be a supply of furnished accommodation. The Under-Secretary and his hon. Friends cannot possibly solve the housing problem in the absence of a supply of houses. A supply of furnished accommodation is a part of the market.
    The only possible personal interest that I have in the Bill, not being a land owner or a letter—unlike some hon. Members on the Government side of the House—is to ensure that my two children, when they leave home to take up their training

    601
    in other towns, are able to get furnished accommodation. Like many other young people, that is the only source available to them for getting living accommodation away from home.
    At present the scales are balanced against the landlord who wishes to provide that accommodation. The new clause will not affect existing tenancies. It will only serve to bring on to the market tenancies which would not otherwise come on to the market. It may serve to encourage people to do conversions especially for furnished letting and to build for furnished letting. All that it can do is to increase the supply of accommodation.
    The Under-Secretary said that people would be at the mercy of the landlord. But he knows that it would be quite possible to provide for term tenancies for a specific number of years, in which everyone knows where he stands at the outset, but he refuses to do it. We think that he and his hon. Friends have a blind spot about ensuring a supply, and we shall take our opposition to his view-point into the Lobby and vote in favour of the new clause.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 257.

    Division No. 109.]

    AYES

    [8.48 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Farr, John

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Fidler, Michael

    Knox, David

    Archer, Jeffrey

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Lamont, Norman

    Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lane, David

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Fox, Marcus

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Bell, Ronald

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

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Benyon, W.

    Fry, Peter

    Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

    Blaker, Peter

    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

    Boscawen, Hon. Robert

    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh & Amsh'm)

    Luce, Richard

    Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Bray, Ronald

    Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Brittan, Leon

    Goodhart, Philip

    MacGregor, John

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Goodhew, Victor

    McLaren, Martin

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Goodlad, A.

    McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Gorst, John

    Madel, David

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Marten, Neil

    Buck, Antony

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Maude, Angus

    Budgen, Nick

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Gray, Hamish

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Grist, Ian

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Grylls, Michael

    Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Gurden, Harold

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Channon, Paul

    Hall, Sir John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Moate, Roger

    Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Molyneaux, James

    Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

    Hannam, John

    Money, Ernle

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Clegg, Walter

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

    Cockcroft, John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Cope, John

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Mudd, David

    Costain, A. P.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Neave, Alrey

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hill, James A.

    Neubert, Michael

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Holland, Philip

    Newton, Tony (Braintree)

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

    Hordern, Peter

    Normanton, Tom

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E)

    Nott, John

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Dixon, Piers

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Hunt, John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Hurd, Douglas

    Osborn, John

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    James, David

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

    Durant, Tony

    Jessel, Toby

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Percival, Ian

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Elliott, Sir William

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Prior, Rt. Hn. James

    Emery, Peter

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Raison, Timothy

    Eyre, Reginald

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Kirk, Peter

    Redmond, Robert

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Spence, John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

    Viggers, Peter

    Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

    Sproat, Iain

    Waddington, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Stainton, Keith

    Welder, David (Clitheroe)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Stanley, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Stokes, John

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Stradling Thomas, John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Shersby, Michael

    Tebbit, Norman

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Silvester, Fred

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

    Sims, Roger

    Townsend, C. D.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Trotter, Neville

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mr. Michael Roberts.

    NOES

    Archer, Peter

    English, Michael

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ennals, David

    Kelley, Richard

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Kerr, Russell

    Atkins, Rt. Hon. Ronald (Preston N.)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Atkinson, Norman

    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Bagier, Gordon, A. T.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lamond, James

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

    Baxter, William

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Beith, A. J.

    Flannery, Martin

    Lee, John

    Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Ford, Ben

    Lipton, Marcus

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Forrester, John

    Leyden, Eddie

    Booth, Albert

    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Freeson, Reginald

    MacCormack, Iain

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Freud, Clement

    McElhone, Frank

    Bradley, Tom

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

    McGuire, Michael

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)

    George, Bruce

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Spring b'rn)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)

    Golding, John

    Madden, M. O. F.

    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

    Gourley, Harry

    Magee, Bryan

    Campbell, Ian

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Cant, R. B.

    Grant, John (Islington, C.)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Carter, Ray

    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Marquand, David

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

    Cocks, Michael

    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

    Meacher, Michael

    Coleman, Donald

    Hamling, William

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

    Hardy, Peter

    Mendelson, John

    Conlan, Bernard

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Millan, Bruce

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hattersley, Roy

    Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Cronin, John

    Heffer, Eric S.

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

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)

    Molloy, William

    Cryer, G. R.

    Hooley, Frank

    Moonman, Eric

    Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n & F'sb'ry)

    Horam, John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Morris, Rt. He. John (Aberavon)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hughes Mark (Durham)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

    Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Deakins, Eric

    Hunter, Adam

    Ogden, Eric

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jackson, Colin

    O'Malley, Brian

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Janner, Greville

    Ovenden, John

    Doig, Peter

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pardoe, John

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

    Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Dunn, James A.

    John, Brynmor

    Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

    Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Phipps, Dr. Colin

    Edge, Geoff

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Prentce, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Prescott, John

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

    Ellis Tom (Wrexham)

    Judd, Frank

    Price, William (Rugby)

    604

    605

    Radice, Giles

    Steel, David

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Reid, George

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Watkins, David

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

    Watt, Hamish

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Weitzman, David

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Wellbeloved, James

    Roderick, Caerwyn E.

    Stott, Roger

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Strang, Gavin

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Whitlock, William

    Rooker, J. W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Swain, Thomas

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)

    Rowlands, Edward

    Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

    Tierney, Sydney

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Tinn, James

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

    Tomlinson, John

    Winstanley, Dr. Michael

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

    Tomney, Frank

    Wise, Mrs. Audrey

    Silverman, Julius

    Torney, Tom

    Woodall, Alec

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tuck, Raphael

    Woof, Robert

    Small, William

    Tyler, Paul

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Young, David (Bolton, E.)

    Snape, Peter

    Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Stallard, A. W.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mr. Tom Cox.

    Question accordingly negatived

  New Clause 5

    HARASSMENT OF LANDLORD
    "(1) In respect of premises to which the Rent Act applies if any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof does any act calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household he shall be guilty of an offence.
    (2) The penalties for this offence of harassment shall be on a first conviction a fine of £400: on a second or subsequent conviction a fine of £750; and a term of imprisonment for a second or subsequent conviction shall be twelve months".—[Mr. Rees-Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Its purpose is simple and is in ordinary justice one which should be met by a Government. It seeks to ensure the same protection to the landlord as exists to the tenant, namely, to prevent harassment of the landlord by the tenant. It provides that if any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof does any act calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household he shall be guilty of an offence. The penalties are laid down.
    Under earlier legislation—[Interruption.]
    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you manage to get the
    606
    hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to contain himself and stop making a noise? He is engaging in a secondary speech of his own, so much so that I can hardly hear myself speak.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is innocent. [Laughter.] Order. We have been reasonably good-tempered. This is our last night together for a while, I think.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I am delighted with that statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The picture in my mind of the hon. Member for Bolsover ever being innocent was enough to send me into guffaws of laughter. The hon. Gentleman would never have the capacity to plead guilty: he could never believe that he was.
    Mr. Thomas Swain: He is always sober, though.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I resent that—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the clause.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) says that outside, he will have a writ on his head so fast that he will not know what hit him.
    Perhaps I may re-open. It is very appropriate in the circumstances that I should be moving a new clause which deals with the question of harassment. Harassment does not always come from the landlord.
    I am trying to deal with a serious and important matter. In the report of the

    607
    Francis Committee, which was set up by the previous Labour Government and which reported in 1971, a clear recommendation was made that the legislation to be brought into effect should put the landlord in the same position as the tenant.
    Under the heading "The role of the local authorities" on page 111, we read:
    "There is one other aspect of this matter"—
    the committee is dealing with harassment—
    "which has been touched upon by some witnesses viz. that individual landlords—e.g. elderly ladies—are sometimes harassed by tenants. Instances are given in the memorandum of evidence submitted to us by the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council. We recommend that it should be made an offence for 'any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof to do acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household'."
    We on the Opposition side of the House recognise that sometimes the landlord is right and sometimes the tenant is right, but we do not have the extraordinary sort of paranoia that a number of Labour Members have, in which they feel that the landlord is always wrong and the tenant is always right. There are cases that hon. Members will know about from their regular surgeries in which the landlords are harassed by tenants in a number of ways.
    There is a lacuna in the law, in that there is a criminal offence of harassment against the landlord but no similar provision where the tenant has harassed the landlord. After careful consideration of many cases and evidence, the entirely objective Francis Committee made that explicit recommendation, which has been completely overlooked.
    Under the Rent Act 1968 there is an ordinary civil provision whereby one can recover possession when there has been a nuisance and annoyance occasioned to adjoining occupiers and others by acts calculated and carried out by the tenant, but there is nothing at all to deal with those cases where such acts take place against the landlord or members of his household.
    I shall not burden the House with many examples, but there are a number of clear
    608
    cases of such harassment. For example, it is not uncommon to find tenants who, from time to time, have too much to drink and engage in grossly offensive behaviour to the landlord, very often putting him or her in fear and fright. Many such examples come to the notice of county court judges, but usually they arrive in court as a result of behaviour by the tenants towards other people, such as neighbours.
    This Bill is designed to extend substantial powers of security to furnished tenants, and in the class of the more transient nature of furnished tenants one is more likely to find bad conduct towards the landlord—particularly towards the elderly landlord.
    Many men bequeath property to their widows. This applies in working class areas as well as to other areas. Thus, many properties are owned by widows or elderly men. It is not difficult for them to be unfairly treated—to put the lightest complexion on it—by tenants using bullying tactics.
    The new Clause cuts across party lines. Provision in the law for certain conduct by a landlord to be treated as a criminal offence should apply in similar terms to the tenants' behaviour towards the landlord.
    Mr. Costain: I support the new clause. We all know of cases like that described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). I have a specific case, details of which I have sent to the Minister.
    An elderly widow in my constituency was left a small block of flats by her husband for her income after his death. She had a heart attack, spent some time in hospital and now lives in the ground floor flat. The tenant living on the third floor is a postman who goes to work at 3.30 a.m. Every morning, when he starts his motorbike, he revs it up outside her window. The doctors have implored him to stop doing it but he persists. There is no redress for her. She cannot get him out because he has protection. Why cannot she have the same protection for herself as he has for his tenancy? I wish that the Under-Secretary of State would listen to the debate.
    Mr. Kaufman: I was discussing very briefly with my hon. Friend the points

    609
    which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and in which I am very interested.
    Mr. Costain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that this persuades him to give us the right reply. The Government now have an opportunity to show that they can do something to overcome the prejudice they have that the landlord is always wrong and the tenant always right. Recently, when I quoted the case of another widow owner of property who was in trouble, one hon. Member opposite simply said that widows should not own property. That is the view which some of his Left-wing back-bench colleagues take. I hope that in this case the hon. Gentleman will show that the Government are not prejudiced and will accept the new clause.
    Sir John Eden: My interest in this aspect of the relationship between landlord and tenant goes back over a long time. More than 20 years ago, when I was a political candidate in a London constituency, I was made aware of the abuses which take place. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), I shall not go into the details; they must be known to the Under-Secretary of State. I accept what he said to me when I raised this matter in a debate in the House to which he replied; namely, that there are instances of grave abuse by landlords of their position against tenants. I come across examples of it in my constituency. I condemn them outright and do what I can to help the tenants.
    However, I cannot blind myself to the existence of abuses by tenants against landlords. Because I have experienced so many examples of abuse in the time that I have been a Member, I join my hon. Friends in urging the Government to accept the new clause. There is no doubt that abuses are fairly extensive, perhaps much more extensive than the Government have chosen to recognise. I know that they accept that, to some extent, they exist. I wonder whether they have any idea of how widespread is the abuse. Perhaps I see it taking place to a greater extent in an area like Bournemouth than I did elsewhere because a large proportion of people who stay in accommodation for a comparatively short time are not native residents of the area.
    610
    Those who are inclined to be abusive to landlords take advantage of the relative age differential between them and the landlords. In nearly every case that I have in mind, though by no means all, the landlord is a retired person. In most cases he has come into possession of the property, which is let, largely as a result of having saved against his retirement and having invested in an additional property to that which he required for his use in order to supplement his income in old age.
    This has become such a source of worry and concern to many people in my constituency that when I raised this subject in the House on an Adjournment debate fairly recently it gave rise to a considerable postbag of letters, mostly protesting against what the Minister said in reply in which he pointed out, in effect, that the best answer he could give to these people was that it was the Government's intention to end altogether what he called private landlordism. That is no answer. It is not the answer of a fair-minded person considering objectively and without bias the problem of human relationships.
    I hope that since then the Minister has had the opportunity to reconsider his position. I hope that he has inquired of his advisers and friends about their experience and information on this subject.
    The type of situation I have described often arises in the poorer districts where people who have taken up a tenancy have chosen to exercise a degree of muscularity to retain their hold on the premises. It is important that something is done to try to help landlords in such situations in which they are clearly victims of abuse. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope that when he replies the Minister will at least accept the principle behind the clause if he cannot accept the clause itself. I represent a poor area, such as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) mentioned. There is much merit in the general argument and point of view he put forward. I have had experience of housing matters over many years. No one can support Rachmanism. If there is Rachmanism by a landlord it ought to be stopped, and if there is a minor form of Rachmanism by the tenant it also ought to be stopped.

    611
    I have had a number of such cases in which, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has pointed out, there are tenants who—let us be fair to them—are a little eccentric, or who, as the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) mentioned, may, if they are not dipsomaniacs, like to drink more than a landlord or landlady would wish. Such tenants may not be deliberately objectionable, but they sometimes create problems and do things which become objectionable to the landlord or landlady living in the same house.
    I have known of cases in which immigrant problems have been created on this basis. An immigrant may own or control a house and live in part of it, and a tenant may resent being a tenant of a coloured landlord. Such a tenant may go deliberately out of his way to create problems, by doing such things as slamming doors or fixing on or removing locks. He may deliberately allow his children to play in the corridors of the house or run up and down the stairs, causing various problems.
    Landladies and landlord have come to me complaining about this and I have taken the matter up with the local authority or the police. The police say that they cannot do anything, and the local authority rightly points out that it cannot do anything. Invariably, tenants behave in the way I have described because they want to get on to a council housing list. They already have adequate accommodation and so cannot get on the housing list in the normal way, especially in my area, where the list is enormous and in any case urgent housing needs must come first. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows of the housing problems in my constituency—he was there only today.
    Tenants deliberately create problems so as to try to get the landlord or landlady to confirm that the accommodation is not suitable. Tenants hope that this will help them in their claim to be housed by the council. Some tenants have admitted to me that they have caused trouble or difficulty for landlords or landladies because they regard this as the only way of getting rehoused. I think that this is a bit much, particularly if old people are the victims of such behaviour.
    612
    I came across a case at the time of the last General Election, involving a dear old lady. I went round four times to see the tenant concerned. The lady had parted from her husband. Virtually every night of the week she had a gentleman friend in, and the gentleman friend had a girl friend in. There was never any proof that there was anything wrong going on. The landlady told me, "I am convinced my house is being made into a brothel." As far as such a thing could be proved, that was the position; she could not do anything about it.
    The lady who was causing the bother came to see me and said that she wanted to be rehoused by the council. She said she had been on the waiting list for six months and had not been rehoused. I said, "I have got constituents who have been 16, even 26 years on the waiting list and they have not been rehoused."
    The council has done a wonderful job in difficult circumstances. It is building lovely houses and flats. This sort of practice on the part of tenants is going on in some of the hard-pressed areas. They move into areas like mine. We have people coming from literally all over the world. They get temporary accommodation and then hope to cause a little bit of trouble so that they can be rehoused by the local authority. If the Minister cannot accept this clause I hope he will say that something can be done to deal with a legitimate grievance.
    Mr. Emery: It is agreed that there is harassment of landlords by tenants. If that is so I cannot see why we should not insert this simple, reasonable amendment. If the Minister feels it is not correctly drafted I am certain that my hon. Friend would be willing to be guided by him. I would have thought that the principle is something which the Minister would want to accept as a matter of logic, since he has reasonably argued that he wants to be fair to landlord and tenant.
    It might be argued that some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) could be covered under Section 80(2)(b) of the Rent Act 1968, which allows for nuisance or annoyance when the dwelling has been used for immoral or illegal purposes.
    I feel that the strength of the clause lies in the words:
    "the peace or comfort of the landlord".

    613
    That does not seem to be in any way covered by new Clause 1, which we have now passed. While that clause will obviously give some help, it is worth bearing in mind this further point about the peace and comfort of the landlord. Surely his peace and comfort is just as important as that of the tenants—it might be argued that it is of greater importance, because it is his property and his money. If it is illegal for the landlord to harass a tenant it is surely right that we should seek to deal with the reverse situation here.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I have been following the debate with great interest. There are two points on which I should like clarification. As I understand it, many of the cases that have been quoted relate to harassment which has nothing to do with an attempt to restrain a landlord from pursuing a remedy. However, as the clause is drafted it would be effective only if that were the object.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who was most interesting, said that the cases to which he drew attention were designed to compel local authorities to take action. Other cases have been quoted in which there appears to be the general intention to annoy. Am I right in saying that the clause would not relate to those cases, as there would be no intention to cause the landlord to restrain from pursuing a remedy or pursuing a right? I understand that we have written into legislation a similar provision regarding the harassment of the tenant. Would not some of the cases that have been quoted be covered by the existing law on nuisance and on other matters which are already illegal?
    Mr. Emery: I accept that there are doubts about certain aspects of nuisance. Again, we come to the difficult decision whether to prosecute a tenant on the ground of nuisance. Many times such a course has failed. It is a doubtful and dubious approach for a landlord to take. I have advised people to be careful about the expenses that they have been running up. So much depends on the judicial bench. To put the matter in commercial terms, the law is open-ended and rests very much on the way in which the case has been presented.
    614
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the clause would allow local authorities to take certain action. It is obvious that that is not its intention. As I understand it, the intention is not to bring the local authority into the matter but to allow the landlord to be able to prove harassment, the limitation of peace and comfort, or any action which would be likely to refrain the landlord from exercising any right. In those circumstances the landlord could go to court.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-West says that some of his constituents go to great lengths to get the local authority to act—namely, to rehouse them. I agree with him entirely. As the chairman of a housing committee I know that when people had an order made against them in these terms it was always necessary to consider whether they had gone out of their way to be evicted.
    That is one of the easiest ways of jumping the queue in the housing waiting list. If a person can get himself evicted, particularly if he has young children, the local authority often has to take action to rehouse. There is a lot of difference between the person who has unfortunately been evicted and the person who has gone out of his way to seek eviction so as to jump the queue.
    I want to know from the Government Front Bench whether it considers that new Clause 1 could take part of the action suggested in new Clause 5, in terms not of harassment but of being able to take possession. Secondly, is there any other legislation in which the comfort of the landlord is taken into account? If not, why should that not be done by this clause? I am not making a party political point: I am trying to balance the scales.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gerard Fitt: Only on rare occasions have I attempted to take part in debates on legislation that is concerned with England, Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) painted a clear picture of harassment against landlords. I have not been present either in the House or in Committee when the Bill has been debated, but has anyone instanced cases of harassment of tenants?
    I know of one case which could be multiplied by many hundreds, if not

    615
    thousands. A young boy who lived in Belfast came to London at the beginning of the troubles and occupied a flat in the Kings Road area, in Oakley Street. The house is let out in 16 flats which are let to four couples and 12 single persons. The landlord does not live on the premises and, therefore, cannot be harassed. Since the announcement of this legislation, the landlords have taken every step they can to increase the rent or to evict the tenants before the legislation becomes law.
    I should not mind if the landlord lived in London and was trying to make a small profit from a property that he had bought. For the five or six years he has been there, this boy from Belfast has been under pressure to pay more rent. He has taken the matter to rent tribunals and has won most of his cases. But since the Government announced their intention to bring in legislation to protect tenants from harassment by landlords every device has been used by the landlords to have the 16 tenants evicted or to make life so difficult for them that they would leave their accommodation and the property could be sold.
    The young lad from Belfast does not earn much and he cannot afford a high rent, but he is no fool. When the pressure began he tried to discover the owners of the property. He found out that the leaseholder is a company called Hiroko Developments Limited, a Japanese company—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have tried to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his case. I thought he might be telling an Irish story with an unexpected ending, but he is dealing with a different part of the Bill. We are dealing here with the harassment of landlords.
    Mr. Fitt: In the case I am illustrating, who is the landlord? I contend that it is those who own the house, the people who collect the rents—in other words, a Japanese company. So far as the tenants are concerned, that company is the landlord. I contend that there is harassment against tenants, and I shall support the Government on this matter.
    Mr. Rossi: I do not wish to dispute the facts with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but since he was speaking about harassment of tenants, that matter is dealt with in other legislation.
    616
    Protection exists in the sense that if he complains to the local authority, the local authority after investigation of the facts can prosecute before the local magistrates and the landlords can be found guilty of harassment.
    Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea prosecutions of landlords are so scarce as to be irrelevant in view of the sort of problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The only effective remedy available in the situation described by my hon. Friend is action by injunction.
    Mr. Rossi: I can rely on the hon. Gentleman to make a party political point when we are discussing a serious matter. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West reported the case to the local authority and, if so, what were the consequences. Perhaps that is a step the hon. Gentleman could take.
    Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the matter can only be pursued by way of an injunction. The young boy I mentioned from Belfast came to see me the day before yesterday and asked me whether he could borrow some money so that he could take out an injunction.
    Mr. Rossi: I suggest that the young man could go to his local authority to seek protection against an act of harassment by his landlord with a view to prosecution in the magistrates' court. The new clause seeks to give that particular remedy—however ineffective it may have proved to be in the circumstances of some tenants—to landlords who are being harassed in their own homes. The clause in no way seeks to take away security from tenants, which is the main preoccupation of the Bill, nor does it seek to take away any protection from tenants. Indeed, it is the natural consequence of giving security and protection to tenants.
    In earlier days a landlord had his own remedy against a tenant who behaved badly against him. The landlord could take action for possession. He could convict the tenant even under the common law. That was the landlord's remedy. However, Parliament has made that course no longer possible and, in turn,

    617
    has left landlords unprotected and without a real remedy. The clause suggests that where that situation is created by Parliament it is right and proper that the landlord be given a remedy and protection in his own home. In other words, whether it be a landlord in his own home or a tenant in his own home, he will have the protection of the law in respect of people who try to make conditions intolerable for him.
    Therefore, in as much as Parliament has thought it right and fitting to give magistrates' courts the power to impose fines where a person wearing the label of "tenant" has his living conditions made intolerable by someone else, so we feel that the converse should be equally valid and that if a landlord is having his or his family's life made intolerable, his remedy should lie with the courts.
    When we use the word "harassment", we are using a word to connote action of a reprehensible kind which I am sure no Government supporter would seek to defend. We say that where that conduct exists against anyone in his own home it is right that the courts should have the power to decide upon the matter, and that if a court finds the conduct of a person towards another in his own home intolerable or reprehensible, he will be fined whether he has the label of "landlord" or "tenant".
    I hope that the Under-Secretary, having heard voices from all sides of the House urging him to accept the clause, will do so in no partisan or party political manner but from the point of view of wanting to give justice to people living in their own homes.
    This has been an extremely interesting cross-party debate in which we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the representatives of four parties. I listened with sympathy to the speeches of the Opposition hon. Members who support the clause. I listened with equal sympathy to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I visited his constituency today. I saw the problems which affect his constituents. I also saw the sterling and magnificent work being done by his local authority to try to deal with some of the problems.
    I thought that the intervention most to the point was that of the right hon. Member
    618
    for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). If the contentions advanced by the Opposition could not be dealt with in any other way and if they could be dealt with validly and efficiently by the clause, I for one would look upon it with a degree of benevolence. But, as I shall seek to illustrate, the clause will not cope with the problems about which we have heard in ways which I accept. There are other ways in which the problems can be dealt with.
    The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) will be the first to agree, I am sure, that before a new offence is added to the criminal law it is important that a good case for doing so should be made out and that care should be taken to ensure that the mischief concerned is not already dealt with by criminal or civil remedies.
    The "right" or "remedy" in respect of the premises envisaged by the new clause is presumably an application to the rent officer in the rent tribunal for the fixing of a higher rent, an application to the rent tribunal to reduce a period of security of tenure or to the county court for an order for possesion. If the tenant and the landlord do not occupy dwellings forming part of the same premises, it is difficult to see what acts the tenant could commit which would interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord which would not already be a criminal offence, or at any rate they would constitute grounds for the landlord applying to the magistrates' court to have the tenant bound over to keep the peace.
    9.45 p.m.
    The harassment provisions in the 1965 Rent Act were enacted primarily to deal with cases where a landlord tried to drive tenants out, for example, by changing locks on doors, by making a lot of noise or otherwise making life unbearable for the tenant when the parties share the same premises.
    I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that I am not in any way seeking to ridicule the case that he put forward. I think that he will also accept that, for example, changing locks cannot be done by tenants to harass landlords. Where a landlord and tenant share premises, the tenant will be driving nails in his own coffin if he creates a disturbance since he will be giving the

    619
    landlord a ground for claiming possession in the case of a furnished tenancy or for asking for a reduction in a period of security of tenure in the case of a furnished letting; namely, that he is being a nuisance and an annoyance to adjoining occupiers. The courts have held that when landlord and tenant share premises the landlord counts as an adjoining occupier for this purpose.
    The Government do not think that it has been sufficiently established that harassment of landlords by tenants would be a worthwhile addition to the criminal law. However, I have been impressed by the arguments that have been put forward. While we believe that tenants require protection, we do not contend that no tenant ever behaves badly towards a landlord. Some landlords are vulnerable—even the widows described by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). The position will be kept under surveillance and legislation will be brought forward if evidence of abuse by tenants of their position vis-à-vis landlords comes to light in greater quantities.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: The Government have the evidence in considerable quantity from the Francis Committee, which reported in 1971 and in terms said and made the recommendation not only of the law but in the words contained in the new clause.
    Whilst I recognise that inside the house the landlord may be the occupier with a tenant and thus can take a civil action for nuisance, he cannot take a criminal action as the tenant can. He may merely want to keep him in order and to do so by taking a criminal action. Therefore, why should he be differentiated from the case of the tenant?
    It is no use asking the landlord who is not a co-occupier to get the tenant bound over to keep the peace. Anybody can do that. It is quite valueless. But if the elderly lady goes to collect her rent and is treated to the most disgraceful abuse and is not allowed in or her builder is not allowed in to undertake maintenance or repairs, she can go against the tenant for a new criminal offence of harassment. Those are the three relevant points that the hon. Gentleman has not answered.
    Mr. Kaufman: In Committee we discussed the fact that people do behave strangely. A tenant who sought to harass his landlord by failing to admit people to carry out necessary repairs and maintenance would be a bizarre tenant, even by the many standards that have been advanced. I will not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter because people do behave strangely. However, he has put a point of view which contains some validity and is an argument for further consideration of the matter.
    Mr. Emery: In another place?
    Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has held ministerial office, will not himself become slightly bizarre. It would be false and misleading of me to suggest that we will do it on this Bill in this Session, which has only a short time to run. But I undertake that we will keep this matter under surveillance. It is conceivable that hon. Members will do so too.
    We shall not neglect this matter, but even if we were to adopt the slightly revolutionary proposal of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and take action in another place tomorrow, we could not do so on the basis of the new clause, which is unsatisfactory in a number of respects.
    For example, the clause would make a single act an offence, which is not the case in harassment of tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) would like a single act to be an offence in that respect to deal with the winkling which he deplores, but that is not the case. It is difficult to see how such a provision could be made to work, particularly as it would be for the landlord who claimed harassment to prove that the single act was committed with the intent of making him refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part of them.
    It is true that many activities, like playing loud music late at night or obstructing stairs and passage ways, if repeated often enough, may be calculated to interfere with another person's peace or comfort, but a single occurrence can hardly be said to be harassment.

    621
    Also, it is far from clear whether an act of harassment under the clause would include an act designed to deter a landlord from collecting rents due to him under a tenancy agreement, since that is not a right in respect of premises but a right in respect of the landlord-tenant relationship. Any provision calculated to protect landlords from harassment should include some provision in that respect.
    The penalty provisions of the clause are not in line with those for harassment of tenants, which are a fine of up to £400 or six months imprisonment on summary conviction and, on indictment, an unlimited fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. That seems odd, if the intention is to place landlord and tenant on the same footing. In that sense, the penalties should clearly be in line.
    In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the clause. I have listened with sympathy to all the human cases put forward and certainly will not dismiss them with derision. Some can be dealt with under the existing law, but if that turns out to be unsatisfactory, I undertake that we shall keep the matter under surveillance.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Because of shortness of time, I did not develop my theme, but my local authority had a lot of this trouble and subsequently introduced a byelaw and appointed harassment officers. Could my hon. Friend investigate this system and perhaps circulate local authorities advising them that this can be done?
    Mr. Kaufman: I will certainly consider that suggestion. My hon. Friend's borough is a pioneer in many ways.
    For the reasons that I have put for ward, however, I hope that hon. Members will not press this clause. We do not reject it out of lack of sympathy. We just do not believe that it would work.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have listened with interest to the honeyed words of the Under-Secretary of State, who has spoken about having the matter "under surveillance", having "a great deal of sympathy", and this being "not a matter which we shall neglect". In the end, however, the hon. Gentleman has come up with nothing.
    622
    I ought to declare an interest. I am the landlord of one very small property, which cannot be said to be flourishing. As a result, it is up for sale. If hon. Members would make me an offer, I am sure that without too much pressure I would accept it.
    I should have thought that this was a most moderate proposal, at a time when moderation ought to appeal to the Government side of the House. After all, the equity of giving the same right to a landlord as is given to a tenant is, I should have thought, an absolutely obvious one to all hon. Members.
    The Under-Secretary said that there was not sufficient evidence about it. But these seemed to be sufficient evidence for Francis in 1971. Not only was it a recommendation of the majority, but the minority report with Francis did not see fit to object to it in any way. The evidence appears to have come, according to page 111 of the Francis Report, mainly or predominantly from the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council. These are not the sort of people who can afford to go to solicitors. These are the sort of people who come from quite lowly walks of life or have quite lowly incomes and who attend meetings of this sort of organisation. They seem to have presented substantial and cogent enough evidence for Francis in 1971 to recommend that it should be made an offence for
    "any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof to do acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household."
    I have taken the time to re-read that because the Under-Secretary has taken issue with the wording of our clause. But the wording of the clause is pure Francis. Furthermore, the Under-Secretary has said that the wording implies the doing of only one act and that that would be rather unfair or inappropriate. But it is the same wording that applies to landlords where the word used is "harassment" But the detail of the wording is not used in the Rent Act 1965 which Labour hon. Members, when previously in Government, saw fit to introduce. There cannot, therefore, be any criticism about the wording because, in one regard, it is straight out of Francis

    623
    and in another regard it is straight out of the 1965 Act.
    The Under-Secretary says that there is a distinction between the position of a landlord and the position of a tenant. In my respectful submission, that is a distinction with no difference. Although it is perfectly true that someone who is a landlord can take a lock off a door, and that that is a specific act, there are all sorts of acts that a tenant can do to terrify or frighten a landlord, particularly an elderly woman who has been left premises by her husband in the sort of situation which Members of Parliament all know well.
    The point is not that the act itself should be something specific to which to draw attention. The act is just evidence of an effect it has upon the other person. It does not matter what the precise act is so long as it has the affect of either bringing the tenant into fear, which is covered by the 1965 Act, or bringing the landlord into fear, which is covered by the clause.
    Furthermore, it is by no accidental process that a tenant may end up in a court of law, for a number of reasons—first, because a good tenant is something for which a landlord very much hopes, and the landlord will not take any steps to end a good tenancy. More important, as a fact of legal practice the landlord will go to the trouble of taking a tenant to court only if he can prove—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, the Rent Bill (Lords), the Motion relating to Parliamentary Expenses, the Insurance Companies Bill (Lords) and the Consideration of any other Lords Amendments may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

RENT BILL [LORDS]
Question again proposed. That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Lawrence: The point at which a landlord would take a tenant to a magistrates' court would be when he could prove, or was advised by his lawyer that he could prove, the specific intent to do the series of acts which is set out in the clause. The mens rea involves a very high degree of proof. There is no question of an order being made against a tenant who has slipped up only once. All the magistrates that I know in London would make short shrift of such a prosecution.
I can see no basis for any of the arguments which have been advanced by the Under-Secretary to justify not doing something which it is patently obvious to hon. Members, to those who man citizens' advice bureaux and to the Francis Committee should be done.
Francis reported in 1971. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. For example, there has been a drying up of rented accommodation. As a result, there has been a channelling into furnished accommodation, particularly of young people who cannot get on to a council housing list and cannot buy a house of their own.
A phenomenon which is currently much to be observed is the generation gap where young people become more and more frustrated and older people try to hang on to property for which they have saved all their lives. Increasingly there is likely to be conflict between landlord and tenant.
In the short time that I have been in Parliament I cannot say that I have had the satisfaction of knowing that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), or West Ham as perhaps he would prefer to have it known, has been on my side. In this debate the hon. Gentleman made fair to become the landlord's friend. He pointed to something which all of us know is happening. Tenants realise that by causing trouble in their accommodation they can prevail upon their landlord to serve a notice to quit and then they can seek alternative accommodation from the local authority.

625
These are reasons why the evidence which was sufficiently adequate to convince Francis is even more adequate three years later. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether there was much point in this clause. There is a difference between the ordinary remedy available in the civil law and that which we propose, which is criminal. The difference between these two kinds of remedy is the difference that existed in 1965 when the Labour Government saw fit to introduce a special criminal remedy under the Rent Act to prevent harassment of tenants by landlords. The Opposition did not expect anything would be done, although we accept the assurances given by the Minister that he has a good deal of sympathy. The Government's refusal to accede to this clause underlines their
626
whole attitude to the Bill. From start to finish it has been that the landlord is always, or nearly always, wrong and the tenant is always, or nearly always, right. With the best will in the world I can see no other reason, other than the desire to perpetuate that for the purpose of the political campaign which will shortly be coming, why they should seek to resist this most moderate clause.
Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the support of the Liberals and there would, therefore, not be much point in pressing this matter to a division. I therefore conclude that we are thrown on to the good will of the Government, and I hope that they will show their good will even at this late stage, by accepting the clause or the principle of it.
Question put and negatived.

RENT BILL [LORDS]
  New Clause 6

    WINTER LETTINGS
    'Where the landlord lets accommodation between 1st October and 1st May in any year being accommodation for holiday letting during the period between 1st May and 1st October and at the time of the letting the tenant is notified in writing that the landlord would require possession at the termination of the letting for the purpose of holiday letting such tenancy shall not come within the provisions of this Act'.—[Mr. Rees-Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
    This is an important matter for the seaside resorts and any other parts of the country which engage in substantial holiday letting in the summer months. When the Bill was first published it sought to exclude holiday lettings, but there was no provision about the important question of the winter months. Now, as a result of the amendments made in another place and in Committee, we have a new clause which goes some way towards helping the situation over winter lettings.
    The clause sets the position out clearly and far better than amendments which have already been discussed. In cases where the landlord lets accommodation between 1st October and 1st May in any year—the out-of-season period—it being accommodation for holiday letting during the period between 1st May and 1st October, and at the time of the letting the tenant is notified in writing that the landlord requires possession at the termination of the winter letting for the purpose of holiday letting, such tenancy shall not come within the provisions of the Act.
    I should like to explain the important situation in constituencies such as mine and the whole of the south coast. Indeed, all the way round the coast there is the same situation. Hardly any of us needs the Bill, or any part of it. We might support certain parts of it in stress areas for the sake of others in the cities, but for us it is of little or no use, and can be extremely harmful.
    In my constituency and many others there is a large and increasing amount of accommodation for holiday letting, pretty
    628
    well from 1st May to the end of September. Apart from hotels and boarding houses, which do not come under the Bill, it comprises summer flatlets and sometimes parts of houses in which the owner-occupier lives. More often than not the owners have two or three houses and live in part of one. Purpose-built holiday flatlets are very much on the increase. They are specifically designed for the new market of the travelling tourist who wants to stay for a week or a fortnight, but seldom longer.
    It is true that holiday lettings are exempted from the operation of the Bill during those periods and can continue to be let freely, but the owners want to be able to let them in the winter months, and we want the accommodation to be used then. In some instances the accommodation can be let in the winter for a diverse range of uses at much reduced rents. It is let, for example, to people who come here to study English. In the Isle of Thanet we have quite a large number of schools which teach foreigners English. Much of the accommodation is let to hon. Members, perhaps when they attend their party conferences. When they attend the Labour Party conference at Margate they do not necessarily stay in hotels, but may stay in holiday flatlets.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Our party is so enormous now that we could never exist in Margate. We can find only one place big enough for our conferences.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry, because after the next General Election the Labour Party will be able to be contained within Margate quite easily.
    I should like to give the example of a Mr. Edwards, who has a number of purpose-built flatlet blocks—30 to 40 in three blocks. In the winter he lets them to various classes of people. Many nurses who work in Thanet stay at low rentals in the accommodation in the winter and go back to their hospital accommodation in the summer. Professional people, people working in the colleges in the area, and so on, also take up the accommodation. Mr. Edwards also accommodates a number of foreigners in the winter.
    What we want to be absolutely sure of is that anyone who wants to go in for

    629
    holiday lettings in the summer will not find himself, as a result of doing a winter let, deprived of the opportunity to do so. The problem is separate from the student problem, with which we shall deal later. We want to be sure that we shall not find ourselves divested of this class of accommodation through any fault of this measure. Of course, it has been substantially amended. An example is Case 10B in Clause 3. That is an amendment which was pressed upon the Government and accepted by them. It refers to the case
    "Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 8 months …".
    That is a fixed period, which would cover my point, because eight months would extend from October to May. Case 10B continues:
    "not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case …".
    That would be acceptable subject to the Minister indicating what he means by the words "relevant date" so that we understand it. Then we come to the difficult part—namely:
    "and the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied under a right to occupy it for a holiday."
    10.15 p.m.
    As I understand it, that is the past. We do not want the past. We want to ensure that if in future a person engages in holiday lettings in the summer he will be free to let the property during the winter months. Therefore, Case 10B does not go as far as we would wish so as to cover the position that we need in the seaside resorts and in the areas in which holiday lettings regularly take place. Case 10B continues:
    "a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term."
    In a sentence that covers the position when the period is not, for example, six or eight months but a lesser period.
    It seems that the new clause—this is why it was tabled—is simpler and, I venture to submit, better than the amendments which have so far been tabled by the Government. I do not put it forward as being a perfect type of new clause. We have tabled it because we are anxious to
    630
    ensure that those of us who represent important tourist areas do not find ourselves in difficulty with tourism, which is an immensely important part of Britain's industry.
    There is also the human side. I can assure the Minister that there is a great deal of genuine worry by people who have invested in this type of property. Often they have done so on retirement from industrial areas. They want to feel that they will not find themselves in difficulty if they go ahead and continue with their lettings. Now is the time when they are making their arrangements for the forthcoming winter to engage in their normal lettings. It is no good coming back in October and saying, "We have made a mistake." The Government must get the matter right now.
    It is a desperate pity that the Government rushed us through the Bill. They drove us into what was a record, and I was not one of the Members who wanted to achieve it. It was no pleasure to me, and it probably was not for other Members who served on the Committee, to sit 28 hours in Committee from 10.30 am one day to 1 pm the next day. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) may have been worse off than I was. He kept quiet throughout the whole of the 28 hours. He was clearly ordered to do so by the Whips. I was trying to understand the confusion, the complexity and the general bad drafting of the Bill. I do not blame the parliamentary draftsmen for the absence of instructions that they received. I was on my feet during 18 or 20 debates representing several hours of debate. All the time I was trying to probe and trying to understand the complexities of this measure.
    We are still not satisfied that we have reached the end of the road on this very important point. The Minister must not make a mistake, because all hell will be let loose if we find that we cannot get accommodation back for seaside resorts next spring.
    Mr. Emery: The closer one gets to the South-West, the better is the winter weather. In Sidmouth and Budleigh Salterton, in my constituency, the business is mainly that of summer letting, but be-because of the good winter weather businesses are willing to let during the winter at greatly reduced rentals. The

    631
    tenants are mainly elderly couples who want the more equable climate of the South-West in the winter months.
    If there is a chance that the business person running holiday accomodation will be unable to regain possession for the holiday season, such property will simply not come on to the market in winter. It is the elderly who will suffer in the main. I cannot believe that the Minister wants that to happen.
    Another factor brought to my notice by associations in the tourist industry is that they have co-operated with local authorities in finding winter accommodation for difficult and harsh housing cases in emergency situations. It has always been understood that on the agreed date there would be vacant possession. I know of a number of local authorities which in the last 12 months have advised tenants, because of the possibility of security of tenure, not to vacate on the agreed date. I will provide the Minister with chapter and verse of local authorities which have done this. Whatever he may say about the new clause tonight, I hope that he will say that he could not and would not support any local authority which acted in that way.
    We are not talking about the ordinary stock of housing accommodation, but about part of the wherewithal of the tourist industry, which is very necessary at that time. The Government are encouraging people to take holidays in the United Kingdom rather than use foreign currency. More and more families with small children want this sort of accommodation rather than to go to a hotel, which they often cannot afford. They want to be able to provide their own catering facilities for their holiday. This sort of accommodation is greatly needed.
    It would be an excellent thing for any Government and any Minister if we could use this type of accommodation to help out with the housing need in the winter. To achieve this it will be necessary to ensure that the tourist industry is able to gain possession of these dwellings for the purpose for which they were provided—that is, for the benefit of the tourist industry and the people who are running them as summer holiday lettings.
    The Government have gone some way in ensuring that summer letting does not
    632
    go on for ever, but they have not taken action the other way round and therefore the clause is of considerable benefit.
    Sir John Eden: I fully support the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) which has been illustrated in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I confirm that this matter is causing growing concern in constituencies which have a substantial amount of holiday accommodation. Among those who take advantage of lower rates available during winter lettings are young couples with families who have been unable to find alternative accommodation and who are on the look out for bases from which to continue their search for suitable, permanent homes. They enter into agreements with the owners of the tourist accommodation businesses. They know before they take possession of the accommodation that it will be required, and that it has already been committed to other people from a fixed date. They know full well that their occupancy of the premises, at a privileged rate, is for a limited period, and they agree to quit at the end of this.
    It is right that we should seek to ensure that provision is made in the Bill for such cases. Earlier, in reply to an observation from me, the Minister said that Case 10 B would meet this matter completely. I hope that he will underline that assurance, because it will go a considerable way towards easing the anxieties of people who have problems.
    There is particular concern about the time taken to regain possession of some of this holiday accommodation. Owners of this accommodation wish to regain possession of it so as to go ahead with summer lettings—that is what they are in business for. But often it takes so many months to regain possession that the bulk, if not the entire period, of the summer letting season has gone by and the owners miss the period during which they can obtain full summer holiday letting rates.
    The Minister has two points to answer. The first is on the extent to which the owner of the business is able to regain possession in the event of a man's defaulting on the agreement he has entered into with the owner. The second is the question whether there is any measure, short of the owner having to go to the county

    633
    court to gain possession, which would enable him to get possession quickly so that he can take advantage of the summer letting at high rates and also honour the commitment he has made to the family or individual who has planned his summer holidays on the assumption that he would have the premises made available to him. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: I wish to take the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) to task. He tried to convey the impression that the most important housing need was in areas such as his constituency. If we were to divide the country into areas of housing need and housing stress it would be seen that nearly 50 per cent. of the population which is in need does not live in areas such as the Thanet. The hon. and learned Member has grossly overstated his case.
    We heard talk of sunshine areas. From my experience of housing I can say that this Bill is not designed to protect those in sunshine areas; rather it is to protect those who are in areas of great housing stress. Many people have waited a long time for such a Bill. I do not think that we should give top priority to small hoteliers and boarding-housekeepers in small resorts.
    Mr. Freeson: In this aspect of housing I can think of only one kind of situation where there might be difficulties. That would arise when a person in, say, a seaside town who had not previously let any part of his accommodation decided to let it for holiday lettings. His premises might be available at some time during what we broadly call the non-holiday months, but he might feel that he would like to let them immediately for non-holiday purposes, prior to a holiday letting.
    In such a case I can see that there might be difficulties. It is a marginal element. It could arise, but in practice the position will be that the majority of lettings will involve accommodation which has already been used for holiday purposes for some years. These have been the subject of most of the comments. There will be some instances when people will want to stay on too late to use the letting for hodiday purposes. The vast majority of what will be a minority
    634
    of cases are likely to start lettings at the beginning of the holiday season. Where lettings are already part of the market they are covered by Case 10B, provided that the appropriate notification is given.
    I am concerned to allay some of the anxieties expressed in Committee—anxieties which may have been exacerbated by those discussions. There may be a sense of anxiety among people who are not aware of the true position. The vast majority of people now coming into lettings in holiday areas—if those lettings are at the beginning of the season, and let for holiday purposes—are covered by Case 10B. Existing holiday lettings are covered. The only area in which there may be uncertainty is in the case of somebody who let, say, in December for an ordinary short-term letting but who wants that accommodation to be available for summer letting. One must seek to cover by legislation every aspect that might arise. We are doing our best effectively to cover virtually 100 per cent. of the cases that will arise.
    Mr. Emery: Will the Minister make clear that the security goes with the house and not with the owner of the holiday business?
    Mr. Freeson: It follows the landlord and tenant relationship and not who the landlord might or might not be at a particular point in time. This provides for the landlord, whoever it may be, to give notice in writing to the tenant, in terms of possession, under the case at the relevant date.
    I was asked what was meant by relevant date "The relevant date is in Part III of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act, as amended by paragraph 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill. That means, in the cage of a tenancy subsisting at commencement date, a date six months after commencement. In all other cases it means at the start of the tenancy. I hope that that puts the matter clearly on record, since there may have been some confusion in Committee.
    I turn to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the need for speedy court action. I am advised—I understand this to have been the position in the past—that expedited procedures are available through the courts where the need is urgent. Where these procedures are approved and used, I am advised that a

    635
    hearing is arranged, on average, 16 to 18 days from the date of application. Obviously these again will be marginal cases. It is to be expected that people will be law-abiding, both landlords and tenants, and that these circumstances will arise in only a few cases. In urgent cases—for example, in seaside situations—the average experience would be 16 to 18 days, sometimes more and sometimes less.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I have two questions. First, am I right about the relevant date? Can we tell those who have this accommodation which they wish to let this winter that they must give notice in writing within six months of the passing of this legislation?
    Mr. Freeson: Yes, when there is a tenancy existing at the time that this measure comes into operation.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: In other words, those who are letting at the moment—nearly all have holiday lets on now—and wish to let in the winter must give notice within six months to the winter tenants that they wish to re-occupy in the summer?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind a situation where there is an existing summer letting, and he wants to know what is needed to deal with a winter letting when there is a subsequent summer letting. In other words, we are talking about a period half-way through a summer letting with a view to a summer letting in a year's time following a winter letting. I am not altogether clear what is worrying the hon. and learned Gentleman. His question assumes that there will be switches of tenants. We are concerned to ensure that, where necessary, the tenants know when they are due to go out. If they do not comply with the agreement and with the notification which they have been given, there is the urgent procedure.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: My other question goes to the heart of the clause. Case 10B has had inserted the following words:
    "… that the dwelling was at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date occupied under a right."
    Why did the Minister introduce those words? Could not they be left out?
    Mr. Freeson: I was about to come to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman is moving back on to the ground about which he argued at length in Committee on another amendment. He said that if at any time in the past a property had been used for holiday purposes, it would be deemed to fall within this category. We did not find that acceptable then, and we do not now. It is far too open-ended.
    The new Case 10B is designed to be clear and certain in its operation. It is for that reason that its operation turns upon the question whether the dwelling was during the previous 12 months occupied for holiday purposes rather than looking forward to the landlord's intention of future letting. In the Opposition's clause, it is not clear whether the words
    "being accommodation for holiday letting"
    mean being accommodation normally used for holiday letting or accommodation which has been prospectively let for holiday purposes in the succeeding 1st May to 1st October period. As a third possibility, the words might mean accommodation which the landlord simply intended to let. The imprecision of the Opposition clause fortifies the Government in their view that their own provision is the better one.
    10.45 p.m.
    There are further differences on which I could comment. First, the clause relates specifically to lettings made between certain calendar months. In this difference it must be said that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West has had little regard for the encouragement of the winter sports industry in Scotland, which certainly does not flourish between 1st May and 1st October. The clause would deprive Scottish holiday landlords of any means of recovering possession under their out-of-season summer lettings. The clause also assumes a five-month holiday letting period, which may not suit in all circumstances. In the Bill we are speaking of an eight-months period.
    Secondly, I suspect that the main reason for the introduction of the clause is that the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to get away from the requirement that the accommodation must have been occupied for a holiday within the

    637
    preceding 12 months. Instead, the requirement is that it must be "accommodation for letting" between certain months.
    Depending on the interpretation that the court puts on these words, this might ease the problems of, for instance, the holiday landlady who is setting up for the first time—the marginal point that I made before—or the one who has taken a year or two years off from business. But I must point out that such a landlady might, even under these provisions, find it difficult to satisfy a court that the accommodation was for holiday letting and that therefore the winter tenancy was not protected.
    I could make a number of other points. My main concern has been to establish as clearly as possible the position under Case 10B and to make the point that what we have put forward covers all but the most marginal possibilities. We have covered the position of holiday lettings clearly and distinctly. To introduce an open-ended position, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward, as he did on a number of occasions in Committee, would be to erode the whole point of the legislation generally and to achieve little in practice for the tourist and holiday trade in the resorts to which reference has been made and about which, rightly, hon. Gentlemen seek reassurance for their constituents.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the appearance of Case 10B in the Bill, as amended, is a great reassurance to all who represent constituencies where there are holiday lettings.
    I do not wish to enter into an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) whether the weather in his constituency is better in the winter than in Hove. I am sure that the air is equally healthy in both places.
    There is a genuine problem here. I am grateful to the Minister not only for Case 10B being included in the Bill, but for what he said in reply to the debate and for his assurances. I hope that they will be given as much publicity as possible in the area where these matters are of great concern.
    638
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised, although he called it pretty marginal, that where a dwelling was not previously let there might be a difficulty. This is a difficulty of which we must be aware. I accept that it does not immediately affect a large number of holiday lettings, but the potential difficulty increases the longer this legislation remains on the statute book.
    Another potential source of difficulty that the Minister may care to consider arises when alterations are carried out to dwelling houses, the subject of holiday lettings, which might have the effect of changing the previous state of those dwelling houses into a new state which would be held to be not previously let because they did not exist in that form. I have in mind the case where two dwelling houses are knocked into one and the new holiday letting is for larger accommodation or, perhaps some other alterations of a like nature are carried out. Both these cases, though concerned with property not previously let and where alterations are carried out, seem to be potentially difficult, and the difficulty increases the longer the legislation remains on the statute book.
    I hope that all those who read our debates and normally make holiday lettings will make every effort to ensure that during this holiday season they achieve a letting and therefore secure the protection for winter lettings, because if for any reason they do not let this summer, the following winter letting may be at risk. This matter needs considerable publicity, and I hope that it will get it.
    In the light of the assurances given by the Minister, and in the hope—indeed, the expectation—that it will not be very long before further legislation on this subject will be required and that when that legislation is introduced the difficulty which the Minister has recognised and to which I have referred will be dealt with satisfactorily, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot withdraw the motion; it must be withdrawn by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies).
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause 10

    TERMINATION OF EXISTING FIXED TERM TENANCIES
    'A tenancy or right of occupation subject to Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 or Part VII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 existing at the commencement of this Act or which was so subject immediately prior to the commencement of this Act may be terminated by a notice to quit, served upon the tenant, requiring him to deliver up possession of the dwellinghouse the subject of the tenancy on a date which is—

    (a) not less than six months after the service of the notice upon the tenant and

    (b) at or after the end of the fixed term of the tenancy'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take new Clause 16—Court order to convert furnished to unfurnished tenancy—
    'A tenancy which is in existence at the commencement of this Act and which remains a Part VI contract (in England or Wales) or a Part VII contract (in Scotland) shall not become a protected tenancy except by an order of the court'.
    Mr. Page: The Minister and the Under-Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to return to the old argument that if the clause is accepted there will be greater availability of property to let. This is purely and simply common justice to those who will be hit by the Bill, and I am asking the Government to consider it from that point of view. If people have entered into a contract, be it a contract for furnished or unfurnished lettings, in accordance with the law, it is only fair that when the law is changed they should be entitled to some recognition of that contract.
    The clause relates to a tenancy that is subject to Part 6 of the Rent Act, or Part 7 of the Rent (Scotland) Act; that is to say, furnished letting on a fixed term at the time that the Bill takes effect. In that case, the clause would allow the landlord to terminate the tenancy by six months' notice. If the fixed term came to an end within six months of the Bill's commencing, it would have to be six months' notice terminating after the end of the fixed term. If the fixed term came to art end at some time later than six
    640
    months after the commencement of the Bill, the six months' notice must end at or after the end of that fixed term.
    That is the machinery of the clause, the principle being to recognise that a contract was entered into on the terms of the law as it exists now. The law will be changed by the Bill to the disadvantage of the landlord by creating a security of tenure in the tenant that did not exist when the contract was entered into, and it is only right to allow the landlord, in those circumstances, to terminate the tenancy on reasonable notice to the tenant concerned.
    New Clause 16 is on rather a different point. In Committee we talked on a number of occasions about the case of Woodward and Docherty. The effect of the judgment in that case on future cases will be that it will be possible for a dwelling that is fully furnished, with all the furniture necessary for living in the dwelling as a furnished dwelling, which may have been let as a furnished dwelling and be in law a furnished dwelling, after a period of time and by a formula of depreciation of the furniture, to become an unfurnished dwelling because the payment for the furniture is not a substantial part of the rent.
    Let me use the example of Woodward and Docherty, where the court found that the furniture was worth—using round figures—£100 and that it should be depreciated by £20 a year over five years. It is quite possible, therefore, that although one lets property as furnished property it can become unfurnished and different rules of law will apply if it is let when the Bill becomes an Act in ascertaining the rent of each.
    New Clause 16 seeks to make some definite point at which, in such a case, a tenancy changes from furnished to an unfurnished tenancy and to say that it can only change in that way by an order of the court.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but he must be aware that the test as to whether a tenancy is furnished or unfurnished depends on the value of the furniture or the proportion at the commencement of the tenancy and that it will not change during the currency of the tenancy. The test is at the beginning of the tenancy.
    Mr. Page: That is exactly the test which was not applied in Woodward and Docherty.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Nonsense.
    Mr. Page: It was not. The court said that the furniture was devalued over a period of time, so that a furnished letting which started out as a furnished letting could become an unfurnished letting. That was the basis of the decision in Woodward and Docherty.
    I want to bring a definiteness into the relationship between landlord and tenant. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have a transcript of the Woodward and Docherty case and I have read it carefully. I have read into it that principle.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not wish to prolong the debate, because it appears that it is becoming unnecessarily prolonged. However, the right hon. Gentleman must know that the court takes the test of depreciating the furniture by 20 per cent. per annum. It allows the landlord a return of 20 per cent. per annum on the furniture and that is the proportion of the rent attributable to furniture on which the court bases the test. The court is not depreciating the furniture over five years and then saying that it is worth nothing. The test is made at the beginning of the tenancy. This is basic law, and it was confirmed by Woodward and Docherty.
    Mr. Page: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman has read the transcript of the judgment, as I have. That is not what it says. It introduced into the law a new principle that what starts as a furnished letting can become unfurnished by the automatic depreciation of the furniture over a period of time. Therefore, only the court can say that this has taken place, otherwise there will be complete vagueness between the landlord and tenant as to whether it is a furnished or an unfurnished dwelling. This is only important when the tenancy is existing when the Bill becomes an Act.
    As from the date of enactment, any furnished letting would be a protected tenancy and be subjected as for the assessment of rent to the fair rent principles rather than the reasonable rent which at present applies to furnished lettings.
    642
    Therefore, it is not of vital importance to tenancies created after the commencement of the Bill when enacted, but it is of importance to tenancies in existence at the commencement of the operation of the Bill when enacted. That is why new Clause 16 would apply only to tenancies in existence at the commencement of the Bill when enacted.
    11.0 p.m.
    This is, perhaps, a technical point, but it will affect a number of existing lettings. That is why it should be provided for in the Bill.
    New Clause 10 deals with existing lettings, lettings at the commencement of the operation of the Bill when enacted. It deals with those fairly as between landlord and tenant and says that the landlord shall not be wholly deprived of the rights he had when he entered into the contract that was binding before the law was changed.
    Mr. Freeson: I am baffled as to the purpose of New Clause 16. It appears that it is designed to prevent a tenancy which does not become protected on the commencement date from becoming protected at a subsequent date unless a court makes an order that it should. As a result of the passage of the Bill, it could be concerned only with tenancies having resident landlords, because after the passage of the Bill they would be the only ones which would remain Part VI contracts. Those tenancies which are at present such contracts and which will not become protected on the commencement date are tenancies which do not fulfil the requirements for protection set out in Part I of the Rent Act—because, for example, they are tenancies under which payment is made for board or attendance—tenancies granted by an exempted body such as a housing association or a local authority, or tenancies granted by a resident landlord which are to be excluded from becoming protected tenancies by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 1(a) of Schedule 3.
    It is difficult to understand why the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) tabled the clause, which would prevent such tenancies from becoming automatically protected in future if and when the circumstances of the tenancy change so as to bring it within the protection of

    643
    Part I—that means in the main if the resident landlord moves and some other letting takes place or the whole house becomes available to what until then has been a Part VI tenant and the person becomes a protected tenant by virtue of the absentee landlord situation.
    It may be that the right lion. Gentleman is concerned about the possibility that some resident landlord would unwittingly fail to satisfy the residence requirement at some point in time and so bring a tenancy in the building in which he has been living into protection. Only the court can determine in the last resort whether a landlord has failed to fulfil the residence requirements and whether, as a result, the tenancy has become a protected one. If there is any doubt, it is already open to landlord or tenant to apply to the court under Section 105 of the 1968 Act—Section 122 of the 1971 Scottish Act—for a determination. This power could equally be used by a landlord or tenant under any of the other tenancies which do not become protected on the commencement date to obtain a determination at any time on whether the tenancy is or has become a protected tenancy by virtue of a change in circumstances.
    The procedure already exists in the main Act. It is not obligatory on the landlord or the tenant to apply for a determination, and I find it difficult to see why it should be obligatory. There may be cases where the landlord and the tenant accept without dispute that the tenancy has become protected in those cases there is no need for the formality of an application to the court. What is important, and what is already provided, is that there should be a power for the court to determine whether or not a tenancy is a protected tenancy at any particular time, and under whatever circumstances, when there is a dispute between landlord and tenant. In other words, the point which the right hon. Gentleman put forward is already covered in the existing main Act to which the Bill will relate.
    I now turn to new Clause 10—a clause which appears to be intended to allow the lessor, under a furnished fixed-term contract, to terminate that contract by a notice to quit, giving not less than six months' notice which expires on or after the end of the fixed term. I leave aside
    644
    the fact that, as drafted, it would not necessarily produce the results which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, although I could go over that ground if need be.
    I am concerned with the main purpose of the new Clause. What the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is to seek a method of allowing landlords of furnished accommodation to recover possession, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill so far as they affect the position of fixed term tenancies. In the past many landlords have chosen to let on fixed-term contracts as a way out of the governance of the Rent Act 1968. I do not say that all landlords have done so, but many have been using fixed-term contracts solely to avoid giving their tenants the minimum protection under Part VII of the Rent Act. I have personal experience of this, as, no doubt, have other hon. Members. It would be iniquitous to allow such landlords to gain possession of properties which are currently let to people who desperately need to stay in their homes. Such a move would wreck the protection given by the Bill to some of those in the greatest need.
    I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind those landlords who do not let with this object in view, but I think he will accept that the majority of such fixed-term lettings have been undertaken by landlords in order to find a way round the protection given by the Rent Act 1968.
    Mr. Graham Page: I do not accept that the majority have done it as a form of evasion. The law allowed this. It allowed them to let on fixed terms and to obtain possession at the end of the term. Many landlords did so without any idea of evading the law. This was the law and they acted according to the law as it stood.
    Mr. Freeson: I was careful not to use words like "evasion". I do not feel that those landlords were evading the law, I said that this was a method of getting out of the protection afforded by the Rent Act 1968 relating to security of tenure. Of course, the law allowed them to do it, and it is an aspect of law that many of us are concerned about. As I said in Committee, some of us, having taken legal advice, have sought to advise tenants in order to prevent landlords getting away with what they were attempting

    645
    to do. There has been a large area of doubt about the legal position. Certainly the method has been used to avoid granting security to the tenants concerned, within the law. I do not describe it as evading the law, but it was certainly getting round the security provisions of the 1968 Act, and we are seeking to close that loophole, if I may so call it.
    That is the reason why the Government cannot accept the new clause. As I say, one could go into some of the technical errors in it, but the main purpose is clear. Whatever the motivation may be, the main purpose and effect are clear, and we could not possibly accept it, because it would hit many people who are in most need of the statutory security provision which the Bill would give in the furnished sector.
    Mr. Allason: The Government are imposing security of tenure on existing contracts. Obviously, there is no objection to imposing security of tenure on future contracts, but retrospective legislation is intrinsically objectionable, and here the Government are interfering with existing contracts and changing their terms. These are contracts freely entered into by both parties, and the terms are now to be changed, to the detriment of the landlord.
    We had some debate in Committee about the loss to the landlord, and the Minister seemed to have difficulty in understanding that there was a loss. But there is a considerable difference between the value of a house with vacant possession and its value with a tenant with security of tenure. There is a loss, because the Minister is interfering with an existing contract which is due to terminate and giving it a lifetime's extension.
    The Minister said that what was done in these cases was a way out of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out that what was done was perfectly legitimate. Here is an example to illustrate the point. I know of a doctor who was given a year's job in the United States. He let his home furnished for a year while he was in the United States. On his return, he wanted his home back. He still wants it back, but he does not want it to live in, because he has a new appointment in another part of the country. He cannot, therefore, get
    646
    his home back on the ground that it was his home, which he let with the intention of returning to it. It would be an evasion if he returned to it for a short time in order to satisfy the law temporarily and then got out again. But he wants to be able to sell the house, as he expected to be able to do, in order to buy a house in another part of the country. Instead of allowing him to do that, the Government are interfering with his contract, and are seriously depressing the value of that house.
    Injustices of that kind will inevitably occur. It is no good the Minister's pretending that they will not. This is a profoundly unsatisfactorily state of affairs, and it is quite wrong that the Minister should be prepared to create it.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: This is an abominable piece of retrospective legislation. In Committee, the Minister admitted that it was retrospective legislation, and said that Socialist principles allowed it in circumstances where it was deemed necessary. That is quite contrary to Opposition principle. Whether we like a Bill or not, we do not introduce retrospective legislation. [Interruption.] No, we do not.
    People let their properties furnished on fixed-term contracts because most such contracts were for six or nine months, and at the end of that period they could have their properties back, as they wished and intended according to the terms of their ordinary fixed-term contracts. There was no other reason. There was no question of getting round or out of the provisions of the Act. There may have been a few dodgers or people who wanted to keep clear of rent tribunals, but they were very much in the minority.
    Although the new clause approaches the matter in a different way from that of the amendment we moved in Committee, we are still left with an unsatisfactory position. The one reason the Bill is being forced through late at night and is being taken in a matter of days, compared with the proper discussion of weeks, is to catch the landlord before he can get rid of the property. Let us come clean and say so, because that is what it seeks to do.
    Question put and negatived.

  New Clause 11

    ACCEPTANCE OF RENT AFTER NOTICE TO QUIT
    'The acceptance by the landlord of rent payable in respect of premises, which are or were subject to a protected tenancy or a tenancy to which Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 applies or a tenancy to which Part VII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 applies, after the operative date of a notice to quit those premises shall not invalidate nor be deemed to be a withdrawal of that notice'.—[Mrs. Thatcher.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.—[Mrs. Thatcher.]
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have somewhat fallen out of humour with the clause since it was tabled, and it is right frankly to say so and not to waste the time of the House. I shall therefore treat it as a probing clause. It frequently happens that lawyers feel it wiser to advise that if some rent has been accepted the whole process of service of notice, and so on, must start again. The law is not as clear as it might be, or, if the law is clear, it is not generally understood to be clear, and we feel that it should be. Will the Minister say clearly, therefore, that he does not intend that acceptance of rent should invalidate or be deemed to be a withdrawal of the notice.
    If we get that assurance we shall be prepared not to press the clause.
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for being straightforward about the purpose of the clause. I can answer him briefly. The law as I understand it is that the acceptance of rent after the operation of a notice to quit does not of itself create a new tenancy. It never did. It could in certain circumstances be taken as evidence from which a court would infer the intention to create a new tenancy, but there are a number of ways in which one could preclude that from happening. The language under which rent was accepted might be sufficient to displace that assumption, although language itself could not displace it if the facts clearly led to the inference of the intention to create a new tenancy.
    648
    Where the tenant is under a statutory protection, that will be an explanation which the court will take to explain the acceptance of rent, and that will displace the presumption of an intention to create a new tenancy.
    I do not think that I can improve on what was said by the present Master of the Rolls in Marcroft Wagons v. Smith dealing with a case in which there was statutory protection. He said:
    "In these circumstances, it is no longer proper for the courts to infer a tenancy at will, or a weekly tenancy, as they would previously have done from the mere acceptance of rent. They should only infer a new tenancy when the facts truly warrant it."
    and, a little later:
    "If the acceptance of rent can be explained on some other footing than that a contractual tenancy existed, as, for instance, by reason of an existing or possible statutory right to remain, then a new tenancy should not be inferred."
    So the landlord is not obliged to allow a tenant to remain rent-free under pain of having created a new tenancy.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am most grateful to the Solicitor-General. We now have the legal position clearly on the record, and it will be valuable.
    Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause 15

    AMENDMENT OF S. 73 OF THE RENT ACT 1968
    "After subsection (2) in section 73 of the Rent Act 1968 (powers of rent tribunals on reference of Part VI contracts) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) Where on reference of a Part VI contract under which the rent includes payments for rates then—

    (i) the Rent Tribunal shall determine what part of the rent is payable exclusive of rates and what amount of rates it is just and equitable that the tenant shall pay for the rating year then current;

    (ii) for the purpose of this subsection the Rent Tribunal shall have the powers of a Court or Judge to apportion the rateable value of the building of which the dwelling house forms part; and

    (iii) the amount so determined as payable by the tenant in respect of rates may be increased or decreased as though the letting was one to which Section 23 of the Rent Act applies".'—[Mr. Rossi.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With new Clause 15 we are to discuss Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 11, at end insert:
    '(3) In section 73 of that Act there shall be inserted the following subsection:
    "(7)(i) a person intending to let on a furnished tenancy a dwelling house which is not for the time being subject to such a tenancy may apply to the Rent Tribunal or Rent Officer as the case may be for a Certificate to be known as a certificate of approved rent;
    (ii) a certificate of approved rent shall specify the rent which in the opinion of the Rent Tribunal or the Rent Officer would be a reasonable rent for the dwelling house taking into account the accommodation offered, the services provided, the sharing of facilities, and the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture and cost of its replacement;
    (iii) a certificate of approved rent shall also contain full particulars of the accommodation to which it relates, the services to be provided, the sharing of facilities, and a schedule of the furniture to be supplied and its condition;
    (iv) a copy of the certificate of approved rent shall be handed to any intended tenant by the landlord and shall form the basis of the letting between them;
    (v) a copy of the certificate of approved rent shall also be registered in the register kept under section 74 below; and
    (vi) save as provided by subsection (5) above no variation shall be made by the landlord in the rent payable under the certificate of approved rent except in accordance with such indexation as the Secretary of State shall prescribe at yearly intervals by statutory instrument"'.
    Mr. Rossi: Two separate principles are involved. The clause deals with the situation in which there is a rent quoted inclusive of rates. That is normally the situation with a furnished letting. However, it is often necessary that that part of the rent which is attributable to rates should be identified, particularly when the rates increase and it is necessary for the landlord to pass on the increase to the tenant, as that is not a profit to the landlord. It is an outgoing that he has to pay to the local authority, and he is entitled to pass on the increase to his tenant.
    Problems often arise because, with furnished lettings in particular, where the accommodation is in the landlord's own home, the let premises have rarely been separately assessed for rating purposes. The Rent Acts provide a machinery whereby the tenant and the landlord can
    650
    together agree the apportionment of the rateable value of the whole of the house and arrive at an agreement on what part of the total rateable value is attributable to the part of the premises which are the subject matter of the furnished letting. Where there is no agreement, the matter has to be referred to a county court and the county court judge has power to apportion.
    In Committee the view was expressed that it seemed singularly unfortunate that there were three separate administrations having to deal with the relationship of landlord and tenant. If questions of harassment or missing rent books arise, the parties go off to a magistrate to deal with them under the criminal code. If it is a question of arriving at the rent, they go to a rent tribunal. But if they have problems as to possession or the terms of the tenancy they go to the county court. Three separate sets of proceedings can apply out of virtually the same set of circumstances.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is not a proper posture that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is adopting.
    Mr. Rossi: What we are seeking in this instance, where no great harm or difficulty can arise, is to have the rent tribunal deal with a relatively simple issue, so that when the parties go before a rent tribunal to consider questions of rent, at one and the same time the rent tribunal can deal with any questions as to apportionment of rateable value that might arise. The same hearing can deal with all questions related to the rent, rates and the apportionment of the rateable value.
    Rent tribunals are composed of a triumvirate, consisting normally of a lawyer, a professional valuer and a layman. One would have thought that a rent tribunal experienced in dealing with valuations as to rent would be equally competent to do the arithmetic necessary in splitting up the rateable value of a building as between the component parts. Therefore, we suggest it as a matter of great convenience to landlords and tenants, and particularly to rent tribunals, which would welcome having to do it instead of having to send parties elsewhere for determination.

    651
    In Amendment No. 12 we are seeking to introduce a new machinery very similar to that which exists in respect of rent officers. A rent officer can in certain circumstances certify what is the fair rent of the accommodation before a letting actually takes place.
    The amendment proposes to give a similar jurisdiction for furnished accommodation, because the certificate of fair rent up to now has only applied to unfurnished accommodation. We say that where a person intends to let a furnished tenancy
    "… not for the time being subject to such a tenancy. …"
    he may apply to the rent tribunal or the rent officer. We need to say that now because the jurisdictions are split, depending upon whether the landlord lives in the house.
    Even though it is furnished accommodation, if the landlord lives in the house the rent tribunal is the correct forum; if he does not live in the house the parties have to go to the rent officer to determine any rental question under the Bill. Therefore, the amendments speaks of both the rent tribunal and the rent officer dealing with the question of furnished lettings where a landlord wants to know before he lets what should be the correct rent to charge. He makes his application and the rent tribunal or rent officer can specify the rent that is considered to be a reasonable rent for the dwelling, taking into account the accommodation offered, the services provided, whether any facilities are proposed to be shared between the tenant and anyone else living in the house, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture and the cost of its replacement.
    It is also suggested in the amendment that the certificate of approved rent shall contain the particulars I have just mentioned, and also a schedule or list of the furniture to be supplied and its condition. The need for that lies in the fact that if a certificate of approved rent is given by the rent tribunal or rent officer on the basis of what the tribunal or rent officer says, it would be most undesirable if questions arose at a later date of the landlord's removing or changing the furniture that had led to a particular rent being certified as reasonable.
    652
    Therefore, to avoid that situation arising, it would be necessary, for the certificate to contain a list of the furniture and an indication of the condition. Then the certificate of approved rent issued by the rent tribunal or the rent officer would be handed to the intended landlords with a copy of the certificate signed by the rent officer or someone on behalf of the rent tribunal and that would form the basis of the letting between the parties. It would stipulate the rent payable and certified as reasonable. It would also certify the accommodation and give details of it and of the services and state whether there was any sharing of facilities, and it would list the furniture. For a double security—a double lock, as it were, on the situation—a copy of the certificate of approved rent would be kept in a register.
    11.30 p.m.
    Finally, the new clause states that no variation could be made by the landlord in the rent payable under the certificate of approved rent except in accordance with such indexation as the Secretary of State prescribed by statutory instrument at yearly intrvals. The extent to which he authorised a percentage increase in rents in any given year to take care of the cost of repairs and maintenance and the cost of furniture would be entirely a matter for the Secretary of State, having regard generally to the cost of living within reasonable limits and ensuring fairness between the parties in view of the ordinary contingencies of life.
    The protection of the tenant would be the certificate issued in advance by the rent tribunal or the rent officer, and the protection of the landlord would be that, having gone through this procedure and found what was a reasonable and fair rent—the term that one uses does not matter—having found the rent stipulated by an independent body, the landlord would know that the tenant, entering that bargain with his eyes open, would not later be able to cause difficulties about the certified quantum of rent.
    The objective of the new clause is to remove much of the difficulty that can arise between landlord and tenant when the tenant feels that he is being overcharged and that the landlord is being too greedy. If the rent can be certified in advance in this way, the tenant will rest

    653
    assured from the outset that he is paying a fair and appropriate rent for his furnished accommodation.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend say whether what he is recommending would be national legislation or local byelaws? Has he in mind the cost of this pretty expensive apparatus? Should that cost be borne on national taxation or by local ratepayers?
    Mr. Rossi: As far as I am aware, rent tribunals are not paid by local authorities. I am not sure about rent officers. They are appointed by town clerks, but I am not sure whether the local authorities pay their salaries. Even if they do, I am not sure whether they are not 100 per cent. reimbursed by the State. In any case, the apparatus already exists. The rent officers are to be supplemented by an increased staff to cope with the work that the Bill will give them. I do not think that this proposal would mean a great deal of additional work. In the long term it will reduce work, because if rents are certified in advance, fewer disputes will come before officers, with all the acrimony that such disputes entail.
    Mr. Kaufman: I can lift the burden fo apprehension from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) as I fear that I cannot be forthcoming to his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the two proposals that he has put forward. There is already provision in Section 6 of the 1968 Act for the court to determine the apportionment of rateable value. Even after listening to the hon. Member for Hornsey I am still not clear why the clause should give this power to the rent tribunal, apart from the intention of saving a separate application to the court for a determination.
    I had occasion to tell the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee that the fixing of the proportion of rates payable by the tenant is no part of the rent tribunal's functions and is specifically excluded by the provisions of Clause 6. If a dwelling is not a separate rateable hereditament and there is disagreement between landlord and tenant as to the proportion of rates payable, the only proper recourse is to the court. To give the rent tribunal equivalent powers would, in our view, not produce a sensible solution.
    654
    With regard to Amendment No. 12, I shall not trouble the House with arguments, which I could advance, about the principle of a certification procedure. This is controversial. One could cite the Holy Writ, or at any rate the Apocrypha of Francis. There is no need for me to do so, however, since the procedure set out in the amendment is unacceptable to the Government. It provides that the landlord may increae the rent in accordance with an index annually prescribed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State without any requirement for a reference to the rent tribunal for registration of a rent increased in this manner.
    One can only presume that the indexation procedure would allow a landlord, even if it was not specifically so intended, to recover a higher rent each year to take account of the effects of inflation. This, I must tell the hon. Gentleman—although I am sure he knows it—is directly contrary to the principle of rent fixing that the rent fixed relates primarily to the accommodation provided. I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that it conflicts violently with the Government's fight to hold down prices to combat inflation. I cannot, therefore, recommend the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause or his amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am astonished at the Under-Secretary. Sometimes it is a virtue to go on playing a straight bat and be obstructive to every sort of reform procedure put forward by this side of the House. New Clause 15 represents a simple little change to reduce the procedure and to make it easy for the parties to get a decision; instead of going to the court, instead of getting one decision and taking that to the rent tribunal and having a further decision, to go to one body, the rent tribunal, and get it all decided there.
    The parties have to go to the rent tribunal to decide between them what the rent may be. It is perfectly simple to have the rates apportioned there and have the matter decided. It is a burden on the county court to have to decide this as a separate issue. It is a burden on the parties to go there.
    I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have accepted such a simple little reform of this nature. I have no doubt that at the top of his brief is written "Reject".
    Mr. Kaufman: "Resist".
    Mr. Page: It is sometimes "Resist" sometimes "Reject". I am delighted that it is only "Resist" because "Reject" is much firmer. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would simply cross out "Resist"" and substitute "Consider". I thought I saw a sort of smile on his face at one time and that he would allow this proposal to go through. It is such a simple little reform but it would bring great benefit to the parties and to the court or tribunal and yet it is rejected, and not even on the basis of drafting. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had not drafted it quite right, however, it would not matter if it went into the Bill now because we must have a Bill of Corrigendum next Session to correct all the mess that has been made to legislation during the past few days.
    I am told that there are at least six clauses in the Housing Bill which are complete "ga-ga" and are not even intelligent grammar, let alone intelligent law. We will have to have a Bill of Corrigendum. I urge the Minister to let my hon. Friend have his amendment and if there is any drafting to be put right let it be done later.
    Question put and negatived.

  Clause 2

    CERTAIN TENANCIES NOT TO BE PROTECTED
    Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 33, after 'persons', insert:
    'or by an individual or individuals of a dwelling house approved by a specified educational institution'.
    This amendment concerns students and their accommodation. The Minister knows that this has been the subject of important debates in the other place, and I know that this cause was pleaded with clarity and cogency in Committee. It is a measure of the importance which we attach to the subject that once again we return to it. As I understand it, without this amendment the only accommodation exempted from the Bill is that provided by educational institutions for their students, with an extension for specified institutions and bodies of persons. With the amendment incorporated in the Bill the accommodation at present available
    656
    for students in the form of houses, flats or bed-sitters in the university and polytechnic towns would likewise escape protection and therefore continue to be available for the student world.
    For years, every late September or October, I have been on the receiving end of complaints from the university towns that there was insufficient accommodation available for students. At the begining of the Michaelmas term we were always worried that that would turn out to be true, because the universities and polytechnics provide only a minority of the residential places for the students under their care. With a university it might be one-third, with a polytechnic considerably less. The rest is provided by the ordinary accommodation in the town.
    A lot of such accommodation these days is in the form of flats or houses, because that is the way students like to live these days. They do not want to go to the old-fashioned landlady to the extent that we did 20 or more years ago. They want to take their own accommodation and share it and rent it. It is usually rented furnished. A number of landlords and landladies provide that kind of accommodation and it is recognised that it is for students.
    If the Bill goes through unamended in this way our fear is that a good deal of that accommodation will not be available, because a number of existing students will become protected tenants and may hold over and not release the accommodation for the new generation of students. Consider towns which have universities, polytechnics and colleges of education. I can think of a number, like Oxford, Brighton, Leeds, Birmingham and Exeter. A number of big cities have a considerable number of educational institutions. Each year the number of students increases.
    I know that we used to say that in percentage terms we tried to keep the percentage of accommodation provided by the universities in terms of halls of residence constant in relation to the total numbers. But percentages can be misleading. When there is an expansion in universities and higher education the number who go to these places annually increases, so that the actual number of those who have to find accommodation increases.

    657
    11.45 p.m.
    Our great fear is that this September or October, when one has protection for the first time, if our amendment is not accepted there will be a shortage on a scale never before experienced, which will continue into successive years. I know that the National Union of Students thinks the Government's position is all right. I have had conversations with its vice-president on this matter. If accommodation is not there, there is no way of providing it rapidly. One cannot in the circumstances rapidly put up prefab accommodation. The only way is to see that the accommodation which would normally be released continues to be released.
    I understand that in future years a register of approved accommodation will be provided so that landlords who provide houses, flatlets or bed-sitters can apply to the bursar for approval. They would then become "approved accommodation" and would be exempt from protection.
    However, as I look at the clause, it does not seem to me that the regulation-making powers under subsection (2) would, as at present drafted, enable the Government to do that. Let us examine subsection (1). Accommodation which is exempt from the Bill is accommodation
    "provided by a specified educational institution … or body of persons."
    Then we go to the next provision to see what is meant by "specified", and it says that it means
    "specified, or of a class specified … for the purpose of that paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument."
    It is accommodation provided by another specified institution or by a class of specified institution. It looks to me as though that refers not to a miscellaneous group of individuals but to the kind of institution that provides halls of residence—which is not the institution authorised by the university as such. For example, churches may well provide halls of residence for some of their own people who are at university. One might specify a class of accommodation provided by the churches for those attending university or polytechnic. Sometimes, voluntary bodies will provide accommodation for those going to university. But it looks to me
    658
    as though in that case "specify" does not mean a group of individuals in any way. The only other group it covers is a body of persons. I doubt whether a miscellaneous group of individuals is a body of persons. I shall ask the Minister whether what he proposes to do is within the regulation-making power of subsection (2), because I do not believe it is. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will look into the situation while I am talking.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It does not ultimately depend on what the Minister is good enough to tell us tonight; it depends, in part, whether the Statutory Instruments Committee of this House reports whether such a statutory instrument is or is not ultra vires in terms of the Bill. If the Minister believes that the Bill can cover landladies and the Statutory Instruments Committee takes the view that it is ultra vires, his intention in the statutory instrument would be nullified. We would then have to have amending legislation which could not possibly be done within the time sequence. My right hon. Friend was rightly drawing that situation to the attention of the House.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that we have now made the point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It makes it even more important to get it right now and for the Government to consider accepting our Amendment if the position is to be covered this year and in future years without introducing new legislation for the purpose.
    As I understand it, only accommodation that is provided by the institution or a particular class of institution or a body of persons, in the sense of a group of trustees or an unincorporated society, is exempted from the protection provided in the Bill. If that is so, the position which may reign in Oxford, Birmingham, Leeds, Exeter, Hove, and so on, may be very serious. That is why we think it wise to pursue the amendment. Unless we can obtain rigid assurance from the Minister that what he wants to do is covered, I hope that he will consider accepting the amendment.
    Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), because my constituency is likely to be one of those severely affected by the Clause if the amendment is not carried.

    659
    If the amendment is not carried, the sufferers from the consequences of the Bill will not be the landlords. They will be the students, and others in a like position—for example, nurses in training at hospitals or apprentices in industry on industrial training courses, to name only two examples which would also arise in Oxford.
    As my right hon. Friend has asked some penetrating questions about the exast significance of the clause as it is drafted, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister about the exact meaning of the Bill as drafted and as understood by the Government. In order to do that I must first explain my understanding of the meaning of the clause, and I shall then ask the Minister for a categorical confirmation of or disagreement with my interpretation.
    It appears that the Bill as drafted takes care of the interests of the educational institutions themselves when they provide hostels or similar accommodation. This appears clear from subsection (1)(bb).
    Secondly, from what she said I am not entirely sure whether my right hon. Friend was in agreement with my interpretation, but it appears to me that the Bill will also take care of the interests of landladies or landlords who let rooms to students in houses which they themselves occupy. This appears to arise from Schedule 2, paragraph 1. I ask the Minister for a categorical confirmation of those two points or for reasons for disagreeing.
    In other words, I understand that students who are tenants of either educational institutions or of landlords or landladies resident in the houses in which they let rooms are excluded from protection by the Bill. This appears to be perfectly right, but I do not see why, if the educational institution is taken care of by the Bill, the private landlord who lets a furnished flat or house of which he is not an occupant should not be put in the same position as the educational institution, since he is providing exactly the same service on the same terms to the same students. Why should he not have the same right as the educational institution to recover his property in order to let it again to future students, as student generations go on?
    660
    If the amendment is carried the landlord will have that right; if not, it appears to me that what will happen will be the same as has already happened with unfurnished accommodation, to which the same principles have been applied in the past—namely, that landlords will simply take such accommodation off the market and it will no longer be available for letting to students.
    I see at least one hon. Gentleman shake his head but I have already heard from owners of property in Oxford that that is what they intend to do. That will have very severe consequences for young students, especially those who, as my right hon. Friend said, prefer to live alone or in groups rather than to take bed-sitters in a house with a landlady or a landlord.
    In a town like Oxford—admittedly, there is no town exactly like Oxford, but in a town where there is, for example, a university, a polytechnic, a college of further education, a teacher training college, a teaching hospital, a very large engineering industry with a large number of apprentices, many secretarial colleges, crammers, and so on, serving many thousands of students, of whom increasing numbers want to live in groups or alone—the consequences of the Bill, without the amendment, will be very grave.
    It is no use the Minister's saying, if he intends to do so, that such students, apprentices, or nurses can go to hostels or boarding houses, because that is precisely what independent young people do not want to do, and, in any case, there will not be enough. Neither is it any use the Minister's saying, if he intends to do so, that most of them will leave anyway when their courses finish, so that their landlords will have no real problem. Most of them will leave, but it is the minority who will not that alarms the landlords.
    Unfortunately, we have begun to breed in this country what the Russians used to call perpetual students, admittedly in small numbers—but even small numbers are sufficient to create an alarming situation. Even now, I sometimes get requests for help in obtaining grants from students in their late' thirties who have been living for years on the taxpayer by means of educational grants. Lest I be misunderstood, because I am speaking of Oxford, let me make it quite

    661
    clear that I am not talking of Ruskin College where different conditions apply. But this is happening, and the consequence is that landlords will not take the risk of being encumbered with these perpetual students, even though they are a minority, when they have no legal means of recovering possession of their property. They will therefore withdraw their property from the market and the sufferers will be the students of future generations.
    It is, therefore—here I agree with my right hon. Friend—essential that an amendment on these lines is incorporated into the Bill. I repeat that this is necessary in the interests not of the landlords who will be well able to take care of themselves, but of future generations of students.
    12 midnight.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is a further conundrum upon which I should welcome advice. Particularly in the city so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), many of the landladies are not freeholders of their properties, but have a limited lease. If we produce a situation in which their sub-tenants have a security that extends beyond that of the landlady herself, what will be the position?
    Under the terms of her lease, she is bound on a certain date to give up the property with vacant possession. If the landlady cannot do that because she has sub-let—not in breach of the lease but in a manner that was in accordance with the lease when she sub-let but which has been overtaken by the degree of security that is prohibited by the lease—what will happen? She will have broken the lease, in effect, by retrospective legislation. I am not a lawyer, and I shall be grateful if somebody will explain the position.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I put a question on this to the Minister, and I am glad to have this opportunity of re-emphasising it because, if my understanding is correct, the landlady who lets rooms in a house in which she is herself an occupant has her interests taken care of under the Bill. In other words, those to whom she lets rooms are excluded from the Bill by the terms of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. I may be wrong about this, but that is the point on which I asked the Minister to inform the House.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We are faced with the phenomenon of an increasing number of married students. They need a different type of accommodation from that needed by single students, and in response to that need quite a lot of accommodation for letting in university cities has been divided into flats. What was originally a house with landlady who let four or five bedrooms to four or five students now, to meet the needs of married students, has been divided into flats, with the landlady living in one of the flats.
    I am not a lawyer, but I think that in law the landlady in such a case comes outside the protection afforded to somebody living in the house. Again we get this conundrum of people acquiring a security for reasons that the Government do not intend.
    Mr. Allason: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has studied Clause 10 and the case where there is a separate flat in the house. If the landlady is living in the house, I think that my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. But supposing the landlady wishes to retire. I think that the matter is taken care of in Clause 10. She gracefully disappears and the landlord is saddled with responsibility for tenants. What we do not know is who is responsible for providing them with furniture if their letting is furnished.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: All this shows that we could unwittingly get into a position in which what was intended to be student accommodation ceases to be student accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) represents a university city which probably has the highest proportion of in-house accommodation—the colleges accommodating students—and the Smallest proportion of undergraduates being out in digs, cottages, or accommodation of other kinds.
    Cities such as Exeter, with newer universities, do not have the same tradition of accommodation to let for students. They have expanded fairly rapidly. Therefore, this problem can become particularly acute for them. Moreover, in cities such as Exeter, which is in the centre of a holiday area, the low rents charged to students are made possible because in

    663
    the Summer Recess the same accommodation is let to holiday visitors. If, however, this security of tenure is given, that whole system may be destroyed. The result would be that students would have to be charged much higher rents, because the landlady would be unable to rely on letting the accommodation. This is not generally done on an ad hoc basis. It is advertised in advance. If the landlady does not know whether the accommodation will be free when the recess comes, we are in danger of changing the whole pattern of student accommodation in a manner that will be extremely harmful to our student population. It will be beyond the capacity of anyone, including the universities or local authorities, to remedy this situation in a matter of two or three years once the Bill reaches the statute book.
    I ask the Minister to give serious reconsideration to altering so radically the system of student accommodation with the serious risk of results which I am sure he does not intend. We do not intend them, and if none of us intends them let us not pass legislation which may have those consequences.
    Mr. Tony Durant: I should like to make one or two points on behalf of the smaller university such as Reading University. Unless the amendment is adopted there may easily be a considerable shortage of accommodation. About two-thirds of students at Reading University are accommodated in hall and about one-third outside the university.
    Reading is at present a boom town. A tremendous amount of new office accommodation is being brought in. Landladies and those letting furnished accommodation will obviously tend to prefer to offer this on short-term loan to companies coming to the area. They know that, as tenants, the executives or the office workers who have moved from London are preferable to students, where there is some risk of their not moving out. They know that the executives and office workers are mostly married, living in limited accommodation for only a short time and will wish to move to other accommodation. This will obviously lead to the accommodation being let to executives and typists, and will tend to dry up a necessary reserve of accommodation
    664
    for the one-third of university students in small towns such as Reading. I therefore support the amendment.
    Mr. Freeson: I accept that there has been a change in the pattern of accommodation in university towns such as Reading, where there has been an expansion in certain types of employment. In inner London, one of the greatest pressure areas is small households, especially in respect of accommodation for single people. We must come to terms with these changing patterns in our housing policy.
    The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) expressed an understanding of the situation in relation to students. Many resident landlords still take in students. We do not know the pattern outside halls of residence. It would be useful if, in due time, we could establish the pattern.
    Students who stay in residence with landlords or landladies are in exactly the same position as that of any other tenant with a resident landlord or landlady—they stay within the ambit of Part VI of the 1968 Act and do not come within the statutory security that is provided in the Bill for furnished tenants. Subject to what we have to say about students, this will apply only to tenants of nonresident landlord properties. This is also subject to other exceptions which we have discussed. I hope that that is perfectly clear. The security provisions do not affect the position of tenants of resident landladies and landlords, including students.
    The power introduced by subsection (2)—this is, in effect, the new Section 2(4) of the 1968 Act—does not allow the Secretary of State to describe the registration scheme by statutory instrument. That is for future legislation, as I sought to make clear in Committee.
    The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) asked whether the clause did not need amendment to make the regulation-making power work in the context of the registration scheme. It is not necessary to have the clause so drafted, because it is not meant to provide for this. This will be done by separate legislation. Although I have stated it briefly, I think this covers the point which she sought to illustrate.

    665
    12.15 a.m.
    As for the position this year, I said in the closing stages of our Committee discussions that I would make yet further inquiries, in readiness for the Report stage, in order to get up-to-date information about the position with regard to the Department of Education and Science. The Department has had no evidence submitted to it of any shortfall being expected this coming September. It has made inquiries, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any substance in the fears expressed in Committee and restated tonight. It is, of course, right that hon. Members, particularly those representing constituencies where the problem could arise, should express these fears, so that we may investigate them. I have been in touch with the Department of Education and Science, and understand that there is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of this Bill and its prospective enactment and implementation will produce the kind of situation about which hon. Members have expressed fears.
    Mr. Tyler: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had discussions also with the National Union of Students. I met the president of the union and he took the same view, that there is no cause for alarm at present.
    Mr. Freeson: I have not had personal contact with Mr. Randall; I have had correspondence from him, and I have had representations which were the basis of some of our discussion in Committee. I based many of my remarks in Committee on those representations from the National Union of Students, and because of the queries raised by hon. Members opposite I explained that we had been in touch with the Department of Education and Science and that I would be in touch with the Department again. It is fair to say that although the NUS has expressed certain views, it does not necessarily follow that different evidence has not been presented to the Department of Education and Science. All I can say is that we have had no such evidence passed on to us. I repeat what I said in Committee, that if such evidence is forthcoming, we shall clearly have to reconsider taking some kind of temporary action if it is possible and if it is necessary. We do not think it will be necessary. We think that the move towards the registration scheme
    666
    about which we want to have consultations will be in time for the subsequent terms in the following year, and no evidence of the anxieties and fears which have been expressed has come from the university areas.
    Mr. Woodhouse: If the Minister is talking about the fear of furnished accommodation for students in university lodgings being withdrawn from the market, he appeared to me to say that there was no evidence that this had happened yet. The point we are making relates to the future; the fear is that this will happen as soon as the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficiently close attention to my words. I was not referring to the past. I was referring to the prospects. Understandably, fears were expressed by Opposition Members at some length in Committee to the effect that the introduction of this Bill and the fact that it would soon become law would noticeably reduce the nonresident landlord accommodation available to university students. I have been in touch with the Department of Education and Science. We are in touch regularly. I made a point of having a further check done between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage here in the House to see whether there was yet any evidence. There is no evidence for the future—that is, the future this coming September. I am speaking now about the future.
    As for the position thereafter, on the basis of the consultations referred to in Committee, on Second Reading and again tonight, we shall be drawing up a registration scheme for subsequent years in order to exclude certain kinds of registered accommodation, in the terms indicated in the Bill and in our debates, from the normal security provisions under the Bill.
    Mrs. Thatcher: With all due respect, the Department of Education and Science would not know what the position is likely to be now. That is why it phrased its reply so carefully—"We have no evidence". Of course, it has no evidence, at just about the end of term. That is the sort of meaningless reply one sometimes gives to questions simply because one is being jolly careful not to commit oneself.
    Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Lady is being less than fair. It was not I who suggested to the Department of Education and Science that there was a risk, or that there was evidence of a drying up. There have been genuine fears expressed to hon. Members opposite, even without firm evidence—that is not a criticism—fears expressed from certain quarters in education, and I undertook to ask that inquiries be made. There was no question of my asking just for a message from the back of a desk in the Department of Education and Science. The Department has been making inquiries, and those inquiries have produced no evidence.
    We have been asked to take some sort of temporary step to meet a situation as described by Opposition Members on the basis of what had been put to them. I can only agree to that if the temporary step, whatever it be, is taken to deal with a situation of the existence of which there is some evidence. Inquiries have been made—it was not, as I say, just a desk answer—and nothing has been received. The Department has been in touch, and there is no evidence to support the fears understandably expressed by hon. Members in Committee and today.
    Mr. Rossi: Let us have the matter clear. The hon. Gentleman speaks of fears expressed to Opposition Members. They were direct representations made to us by those responsible in the universities for providing accommodation for their students. That takes it a little further than the hon. Gentleman has done. This is staff of universities anxious for the provision of accommodation for their students. I should have thought that that was direct evidence. The House must draw its own conclusions.
    Mr. Freeson: I take this matter as seriously as the hon. Gentleman does. Of course, we take it seriously, otherwise, we should not be building into the Bill the beginnings of the scheme we have in mind. I have accepted that there were those representations and those fears. What we have sought from the Department of Education and Science, in order that we might come to a view on the matter, is information, not just representations about fears. I do not say that in any offhand way. If representatives of
    668
    institutions come to the hon. Gentleman, to me or to any other hon. Member and say, "We are concerned about the Bill, and we fear that it will do this or that to the student letting market", in order to come to a conclusion on the matter, to come to a policy decision and, if need be, to legislate, one must go back to them and say, "You have expressed certain fears. Will you give me evidence now, or as soon as you can, showing that your fears are real and that this is actually happening?".
    It has been my task to try to establish that. We have been in touch with the DES, which in turn has made inquiries. I have not tried to brush the thing aside, and I am not trying to do so now. But what I am saying is that, as a basis for decision making, we have no evidence to suggest that there will be the kind of reduction in accommodation about which hon. Members opposite have expressed fears and about which the institutions have expressed fears to them. If we get that information we shall certainly look at the matter again. As I indicated in Committee, in the meantime we cannot act upon something upon which we have no information.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: There has been no consultation between the Government, the University Grants Committee and the other bodies which are in a position to provide information which the Government want. Because of the desperate rush over the Bill they have not been able to obtain that information. There has been no consultation, That is why we are in this difficulty.
    Mr. Freeson: The DES made inquiries at our request. No evidence has been submitted to it from the educational institutions. That does not mean that this event will not happen; it means that there is no evidence of its happening. If we get the evidence we can take action, but in the meantime we shall proceed along the lines set out in the Bill.
    Mr. Durant: The Minister says that he does not have evidence from the National Union of Students that students are anxious about this. I have here a magazine provided by the union at Reading University, which highlights in

    669
    a full-blown article the tremendous anxiety there is for the coming term.
    Mr. Freeson: I do not question that anxiety exists. We saw the article in Standing Committee. I do not wish to push the issue aside. When the information about the coming term arrives—if it arrives—we shall see what we can do to help.
    Perhaps I may now deal with the amendment instead of constantly being interrupted.
    Mr. Rossi: What puzzles us is to know how, with the best will in the world, the Minister will be able to deal with the situation in September. The evidence that he is looking for will not arrive until September. Unless the Minister has power under the Bill to take steps he will find that in September the students will not have the accommodation available. Without the amendment there is nothing that the hon. Gentleman will be able to do by regulation.
    Mr. Freeson: I must reply bluntly to the hon. Member. The kind of statements he has been making from time to time in Committee have raised unnecessary anxieties on this score, and it is not good enough every time I stand here asking for the information for hon. Members to pursue their arguments and yet not provide it. If action is required, we can consider it, but no evidence has been provided.
    12.30 a.m.
    The amendment seems to be an attempt to anticipate the measures we have promised for a registration scheme for private lettings to students. It has been argued that the risk to the supply of lettings for the new academic year this coming autumn necessitates some form of action now, but despite inquiries we have had no suggestion of the threat of loss to which hon. Members and various institutions have referred.
    The amendment is unsuitable for its purpose. It would grant specified institutions an almost untrammeled power to exclude tenancies from protection. It would be a power limited only by the fact that the tenancies are, or are to be, granted to their students, and exercisable without any other limit as to numbers, any criteria relevant to the accommodation, the landlord or anything else, or any
    670
    reference to the local housing authority, which might be placed in considerable difficulty by uncontrolled pre-emption of available private lettings for students.
    All these are among the matters that must be studied with representatives of all concerned in producing the kind of registration scheme we wish to devise as soon as possible. An uncontrolled provision for educational institutions to exclude tenancies from protection by approval cannot be a substitute, even temporarily, for the kind of system it is necessary to produce to meet the problems with which we are here concerned.
    We intend to have consultations with the Department of Education and Science, the institutions and local authorities concerned, and their associations, to produce the right kind of registration system. That is the sensible and most productive way of going about this. We do not see the need to push ahead with an inadequate temporary provision that will produce the threats I have indicated. That would not be the right way of going about it.
    We should have consultations and after proposals have come from them proceed as the Government have indicated they wish to proceed.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is the Minister saying that the Bill enables him to carry out a form of registration? If so, is it through the words "body of persons"?
    Mr. Freeson: I have said that there will be a need for legislation to deal with the registration scheme. This will follow the consultations that I have indicated it is our intention to embark upon.
    Mr. Graham Page Mr. Graham Page rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has sat down.
    Mr. Sainsbury Mr. Sainsbury rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman already spoken on this amendment?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I have not spoken on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to say a few words in summary of what was has been said so far.
    The Minister is not now unaware of the concern in the House about the matter. A great deal of time has been spent on

    671
    discussing the point in another place and in Committee. The Minister has repeatedly said that there is no evidence. I suggest that it is very unlikely that there would be any evidence at this time.
    I wish to speak of the University of Sussex, which is the principal but by no means only source of student lettings in the area I represent. Only about 50 per cent. of the students at the university are accommodated either on the campus or in halls of residence elsewhere owned by the university. Half the students have to find their accommodation elsewhere.
    Risks and problems can arise in lettings to students. In the Brighton and Hove area, there has been a great deal of correspondence in the local papers and discussion of the difficulties of student lettings. Some of the students have complained of the absence of unfurnished accommodation. It may seem surprising that they should seek unfurnished accommodation, but many married students, for example would like it. Its absence is not surprising following previous legislation. These students much prefer houses, flats and bed-sitting rooms, in that order, to the traditional sort of university accommodation—the lodging with a landlady who provides board. I have it on the authority of Sussex University that such accommodation is much avoided by the student body.
    Much of the accommodation that the students prefer, we suspect—although we do not know—is provided in dwellings which are not any part of a building where the landlord already lives. At this time of year, only impending first-year students are having their accommodation dealt with by the university. The second-and third-year and post-graduate students are dealing with their own accommodation problems. The tendency has been in previous years for the first Sunday of term to be the day when a number of students go to the accommodation officer and complain about their inability to find accommodation. It does not arise until that moment.
    We are confirmed in our fear that the problem which the Minister is avoiding solving will come up too late to solve—when term has started and it will no longer be possible to take temporary
    672
    action. What temporary action does the hon. Gentleman think he can take when term has started?
    We have heard that there is no evidence. It is impossible for there to be any. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that despite the absence of evidence, as he puts it, he is prepared to legislate, yet we do not even know what the pattern is outside the halls of residence. The hon. Gentleman admits something which those of us representing areas where there are universities admit—that we do not know how much of the student accommodation is found in dwellings which are not in a building in which the landlord also lives and which would therefore be brought into protection for the first time by the Bill. We do not know and he does not know, yet he is prepared to legislate in the absence of vital information. The hon. Gentleman says that one cannot act on something on which one has no information, but if he had listened to the debate properly he might have been in a position to take action.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about unnecessary anxiety being introduced into this situation by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The anxiety that exists now and that will be considerably increased is entirely of the Minister's own making. He has been warned enough in another place, in Committee and in the House.
    The amendment has much to commend it for one special reason—it would encourage the compilation of a register, an idea that has been welcomed on both sides of the House. The Minister talks of a registration scheme for future legislation, but what help will that be for next year's students or, by the time the change has been made, for future students?
    The warning has been clearly sounded. There is anxiety, and it is not surprising, because it will be impossible to take the action necessary to correct the damage that the Bill may cause when the evidence to which the Minister has constantly referred becomes available. He condemns the amendment as an inadequate and temporary provision, but even an inadequate provision would be better than no provision at all.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 3

    RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING HOUSES LET ON CERTAIN TENANCIES
    Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 24, leave out 'lets' and insert 'let'.
    I suggest that with this we discuss Amendment No. 7.
    The credit for seeing the need for these amendments must go to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who, with his habitual thoroughness, spotted the fact that the verb was in the wrong tense in the retirement home case. I should like to express the Government's thanks to him for such an admirable piece of proof reading and repeat the offer that I made to him in Standing Committee of a job in the Department at any time he chooses to leave this place.
    By exchanging "let" for "lets" we make absolutely clear that this case may apply to a letting created before the Bill comes into operation as well as to a letting created after that date. Coupled with moving the amendment, I offer a vote of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Graham Page: I rise only to thank the hon. Member for that sarcastic bouquet.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 37, leave out:
    'has retired from regular employment and'.
    In this Clause, which introduces a new Case 10A, the Government appear to have provided satisfactorily for the case of the retirement home. Many people are required by the nature of their employment to live in tied accommodation or somewhere where they do not have to live after retirement. Consequently, they seek to provide for their retirement by buying a home somewhere else. They want to start while they are earning the money to do so, when they can begin to pay off the mortgage. Large numbers are affected. One thinks of police officers and bank managers. They need somewhere to live following retirement. People retire from their principal jobs and they then need the new accommodation. Unfortunately, however, in the clause the
    674
    Government require a test of total retirement. This we seek to amend.
    12.45 a.m.
    It cannot be satisfactory public policy to require that someone retiring from his principal job—say, a police officer at the age of 55 or a bank manager at 60—should go into permanent, complete retirement, yet he is required to do this by the terms of the clause. Surely it must be sensible to say that if a man retires from the job which has held him away from the place in which he wants to live on his retirement, that should be the moment when he can take the house that he has provided for his retirement. So far it has all been simple—he has let the house furnished and he knows that he can get it back—but he knows that in future he will not get it back unless he is within the narrow terms of Case 10A. Case 10A is too narrow.
    Case 10A requires a series of tests. First, the man must have bought the house with the intention of retiring to it. Secondly, he has to give notice to his tenant that that will happen and that he will come back to the house when he wants it. Thirdly, he must not let it on a protected tenancy. Fourthly, we get the objectionable part that the court has to be satisfied that the owner has retired from regular employment and requires the dwelling-house.
    If we leave out the requirement that he has retired from regular employment we are left with the tests, first, that the house is required for the purposes of retirement; secondly, that there has been notice in writing; thirdly, that there has not been a protected tenancy; and, fourthly, that the owner requires the dwelling-house, but not that he has permanently retired because the likelihood is that many people who leave their principal employment will take on something else.
    It is ludicrous to expect people to cease all employment at a quite early age. Officers of the Services come very much into this category. Perhaps I should declare not an interest but an experience. Having retired from the Services I received retirement pay, but I undertook another job, which I have carried on very satisfactorily for the last 15 years. I needed to change my residence.

    675
    It seems to me, therefore, that there is no need for these words. They will do an immense amount of harm. The court would have to judge. It would be able to weed out the unsatisfactory cases which, no doubt, the Minister will talk about, the bogus cases in which somebody gets round the entire matter by saying "I have bought this place for retirement and, therefore, I want to be able to get the tenant out of the house at any time I like." The court must be satisfied that the house was bought for retirement.
    I therefore regard our amendment as necessary. If it is not passed, some very hard cases will be caused.
    Mr. Freeson: The effect of the amendment would be to allow a landlord who retired from regular employment and who had purchased a house for his residence to claim possession of it if the court was satisfied that he required the house as a residence at another time.
    It may be that the intention behind the amendment is to widen Case 10A, which is built into the Bill to deal with retirement homes—this was the Government's specific intention—so as to give a landlord an absolute right to possession of a dwelling-house for his own use. The amendment would not achieve this effect, whatever its intention might be. It would apply only where the landlord had intended, when he purchased it, to occupy the house on his retirement. It might be designed to do just this—to offer some relief to the landlord who wishes to move into his retirement home before retirement, whenever that might be, whenever such application might be made to the court for it to decide upon.
    On the other hand—and this remains the point at issue—it was the subject of discussion in Committee—to do this without trying to define as closely as possible the question of retirement from regular employment, which we also discussed in Committee, would open the case to abuse, or possible abuse, by landlords who might claim that they had the intention of occupying the house on retirement when they bought it, when they did not intend any such thing. The Government have accepted from the start, without any pressure—it was on their own initiative—that there was a need to preserve the rights of people who genuinely buy a home in
    676
    advance of retirement and who let it until such time as they retire.
    At the same time, it is essential to guard against possible exploitation of the Case by the unscrupulous minority. Those landlords who have not retired and who cannot therefore claim possession under Case 10A are still able to apply to the court under Case 8 if they reasonably require the dwelling-house for their own use. This seems to the Government to give such people adequate rights without prejudicing the security of tenants.
    As I argued on this and other matters in Committee, we are seeking to establish a reasonable balance between the two interests. There are existing homes to take account of—people who have brought up their families and lived in the dwelling-house for some years. This has to be weighed in the scales, too. If a person has indicated from the outset, through the procedure set out in the Bill, that the property is a retirement home, such a person is covered, subject to the discretion of the court—a discretion provided in the Bill before the end of Committee stage. If such a person has not notified the tenant, the court has a discretion to waive that fact when considering the application.
    The home will be returned to the owner for retirement purposes, for which purpose he had declared his intention of buying the house in the first place. In the meantime, while it is let as a dwelling-house, subject to that, the tenant also has a right, in law, to protection, both as an unfurnished and furnished tenant. We think we have the right balance. Whatever may be the motivation of the hon. Gentleman, to do what he suggests would open the door to possible exploitation when that is not necessary. If we are people who have purchased homes specifically to retire to, which is the object of the case written into the Bill, our procedure covers that and there is no need for the amendment.
    Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made our intention very clear and put the case extremely plainly. We believe that we were justified in pursuing the case he put forward, and we think that the Minister's attitude is quite wrong. Since, however, it is likely to be a period of three months before we can take positive action to put our beliefs into action,

    677
    we shall not detain the House on the amendment any further tonight.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 43, at end insert:
    'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in Clause 2, in page 3A, line 29, at end insert:
    'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require',
    Government Amendment No. 9, and Government Amendment No. 15.
    Mr. Freeson: The effect of these amendments is to fit the new Clause 18 introduced in Committee into the Bill in a more appropriate place. That new clause related only to Case 10—the temporarily absent owner-occupier—but these amendments extend the same provisions to Case 10A relating to the retirement home case.
    The Government accepted in Committee that the requirement that a notice must be served by a relevant date if a landlord is to have the absolute right to recover his home or to gain possession of his retirement home might result in some cases in the loss of that home through misadventure. This is particularly true in transitional cases, where the landlord has let furnished before the Bill comes into force in the belief that he would be able to recover possession without difficulty. The Bill already provides means for such a landlord to preserve his right to regain possession.
    Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows a landlord to serve a notice within the first six months of the Bill coming into force. Paragraph 5 of the same schedule provides that when a temporarily absent owner-occupier has already served notice under Section 79—that is, the section in
    678
    Part VI which prevents the rent tribunal suspending the operation of a notice to quit if the landlord wants the dwelling for his own use—that notice shall apply for the purposes of Case 10 when the tenancy becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of the Bill. But even so, landlords may well be abroad and, despite the publicity which will be given to the Bill's through consulates, and organisations which look after the interests of people living and working abroad, there may be some landlords who will not hear about these provisions in time to take the appropriate action.
    These amendments therefore provide that where the appropriate notice has not been served, but the other conditions of the case apply, the court may grant an order for possession if they think this would be just and equitable. The court is given the power to disregard failure to serve under condition (a) on the present tenant or under condition (b) on a previous tenant. This is necessary to cover the situation where the landlord let his home without notice to a protected tenant who left willingly, and subsequently let again without notice to another tenant who refused to leave without an order from the court to do so when the landlord needed the dwelling for his own use. The power of the court to waive the failure to serve notice under the second tenancy would be of no use to the landlord if the court could not also waive the failure to meet the condition in subparagraph (b) of the case.
    These are the reasons for introducing the amendments.
    Mr. Rossi: If it is said that we have not had much success on Report in persuading the Government of the error of some of their ways, at least it can be said that we did make some headway in Committee. The group of amendments now before us is the result of persistence by the Opposition in tabling a number of amendments to achieve the objective.
    The Minister referred to new Clause 18, which is now Clause 11 in the Bill and which is sought to be removed by Amendment No. 15. That clause relates only to Case 10. It is one of a group of new clauses or amendments all with the same objective and relating to Case 10, Case 11, Case 10A and Case 11A in the Third Schedule to the 1968 Act.

    679
    We intended in Committee to give the court the power to waive notices where they have not been served for some reason and where it is just and equitable that those notices should be waived. This was the way we argued the matter on the earlier occasion. In fact, we said that it would be quite wrong that a man could be deprived of his home because he failed to serve a scrap of paper within a time limit laid down by the Government. The Government have now seen the justice of that argument and are content to leave it to the court to waive that requirement which the Government previously stipulated where it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement.
    Therefore, we are happy to accept the amendment, and we thank the hon. Gentleman for acceding to our arguments.
    Mr. Tyler: I, too, wish to express appreciation to the Minister for fulfilling the assurance which he gave in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:
    'Case 10C
    Where the dwelling house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 12 months and—

    (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and

    (b) at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, the dwelling house was subject to such a tenancy as is referred to in section 2(1) (bb) of this Act;

    and for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we are to consider the following:
    Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:
    'Case 10C
    Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 12 months and—
    680

    (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and

    (b) the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied by a person of a kind specified in paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act and was so occupied under a tenancy granted by a specified institution; and for the purposes of this Case "specified" shall, in relation to institutions, have the same meaning as in the said paragraph (bb);

    and further for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term'.
    Government Amendment No. 48, and Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:
    'Case 11C
    Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 12 months and—

    (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and

    (b) the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied by a person of a kind specified in paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act and was so occupied under a tenancy granted by a specified institution; and for the purposes of this Case "specified" shall, in relation to institutions, have the same meaning as in the said paragraph (bb);

    and further for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a specified period notwithstanding that it is liable to termination by forfeiture or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to terminate the tenancy'.
    Mr. Freeson: This amendment introduces a new case for possession into Part II of Schedule 3 of the 1968 Rent Act. The Government agreed in Committee to the inclusion of the case on these lines, and this amendment is the result.
    The case enables on educational institution specified for this purpose by the Secretary of State for Education to let accommodation for a short term to tenants who are not students in the certainty that they can recover possession again should the tenant not wish to leave at the end of the term. This case will solve the problems of several colleges and universities, in particular, which maintain supplies of accommodation for the use of post-graduate students. Inevitably the

    681
    number of such students fluctuates from year to year and sometimes voids occur.
    At present, of course, the educational institution can let short term until the accommodation is again needed for the use of a post-graduate student. We understand that these lettings are quite frequently made to newly arrived members of the teaching or administrative staff of the institution or another college or institution in the area. At other times, the lettings are made to members of the general public. In either case, the institution will in future be letting on protected tenancies and without this case there would be no way in which the accommodation could be recovered for its proper use when needed.
    Mr. Rossi: Once again, I rise to thank the Minister for acceding to our request in Committee.
    I point out simply that our Amendment No. 10 repeats the amendment that we considered in Committee and is repetitive of Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 48, subject only to a slight variation in wording. As the Government have tabled an amendment in identical terms to our own, we shall not press it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:
    'In Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968, the following Case shall be inserted after Case 14—
    "Case 15
    Where, in respect of the property concerned, planning approval has been given and remains effective for a change of user, provided that not less than six months notice has been given in writing to the tenant by the landlord that possession might be recovered under this Case." '.
    The object of the amendment is to provide for the situation which arises where planning permission is given for a change of user. I have to declare an interest in that I am the owner of property which is let furnished. I believe that this matter was discussed in Committee, but I have not been able to ascertain whether the Government gave any undertaking about it. I feel that, if no provision is made for this eventuality, it will be a serious gap, and I hope that some provision, either on the lines of my own amendment or something similar, will find its way into the Bill.
    I have in mind two cases where a provision of this kind is needed. The first is where planning permission for a change of user has been agreed for a property as it stands. The type of property, which might have furnished lettings in it but for which planning permission for a change of user is likely to be given, will not be the common or garden terrace property or a house originally built for private family occupation. It is much more likely to be a house of an institutional character.
    In my view, it would be undesirable if a property of this kind were frozen and not made available for the community, even where planning permission was granted for its conversion, for instance, into a home for handicapped people, into a hostel or possibly, especially in the case of a completely isolated large property on a country site, for use as a club for recreational purposes, a golf club, or something of that kind.
    The Bill must not be the cause of ossification so that communities cannot put their assets to the best use as circumstances change. The situation might arise where one tenant with security in a furnished tenancy in a corner of a large property of the kind that I have in mind sought to drive a hard bargain, using the protection offered by the Bill not ultimately to retain security of tenure but to be able to sell the vacant possession as dearly as he can.
    It may be that I have misunderstood the terms of the proposed legislation and that such a situation cannot arise, but I believe that it could, and that would be highly undesirable.
    The other instance is where slum property or property which is urgently in need of demolition is being lived in by people in the sort of wretched furnished tenancies which exist in parts of Kensington. It would be undesirable if the normal processes of urban renewal were held up because people were able to cling to wretched and unfit tenancies as a result of this legislation.
    Obviously difficulties would arise if large numbers of families lost the security that the Bill intends to give them through properties being taken for demolition: but it would be the decision of the local planning authorities whether and when that situation should arise.
    I should like to draw attention to the fact that the amendment allows for six months' notice to be given to the tenant in the event of vacant possession being required to give effect to a change of use. I believe that since the decision on the continuance of the property as furnished accommodation or some other use will rest with the statutory planning authority in the area, this is no major departure from the spirit of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will welcome it.
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked whether in Committee we had given an assurance when the matter was debated. I do not think that we gave an assurance, for reasons which I shall expound shortly.
    I accept that the hon. Gentleman sees this as a possible method of bringing about urban renewal, but I fear that it does not conform with the way that we believe urban renewal should be accomplished. In fact, I think that the whole House would agree that urban renewal is far better accomplished through those measures of the Housing Bill, on which both sides are united, which I hope will shortly be enacted and which carries out the views of all hon. Members on how urban renewal, including properties occupied by furnished tenants, should be carried out in stress areas.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. I think that he ought to have included a double negative. I am trying to prevent a situation where the Bill stands in the way of renewal which the local authority wishes to sanction.
    Mr. Kaufman: I hesitate to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that I did not misunderstand his argument, particularly since, with respect to him, I heard it put forward as eloquently in Committee as he has put it forward when an identical provision was proposed for the Bill and rejected by the Committee. We rejected it because its content runs contrary to the principles of the Bill.
    The amendment appears to be an attempt to give the development potential of property priority over the statutory
    684
    right of a tenant to continued occupation of his home. It is an amendment that would apply to all regulated tenancies, but it may be presented as particularly relevant to regulated furnished tenancies because of the developer's practice of buying premises in advance of need and letting them temporarily on furnished tenancies until they are redeveloped.
    It may be claimed that if this is no longer possible such premises will stand empty in the period between acquisition and redevelopment, but the amendment is in no way specifically related to such a situation and would thus—although I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman intends—be open to wholesale abuse. It would allow, for example, any landlord who applied for and obtained planning permission to evict his tenants, but there is no requirement that the change of use should be effected after possession has been granted. That being so, a landlord could get planning permission, get rid of his tenants and then not pursue the project.
    The Department has been told of cases in which long-resident unfurnished tenants have been exposed to the worst kind of stress when ownership of their dwelling houses passes to the sort of landlord who is intent on eviction to allow for subsequent development or sale with vacant possession. This case would give such landlords a legal right to indulge in such practices. The requirement that a landlord must give at least six months' notice of his intention to claim possession under the case would, in our opinion, do nothing to mitigating its damaging effects.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that it gives me no pleasure to reject his amendments, as I have had to do on two occasions, but I fear I must say that we cannot accept what he has proposed.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: We heard an identical speech from an identical brief, almost word for word, in Committee. The Minister made the same point at the time.
    The whole point of the amendment is to try to get from the Government an assurance that they looked at this problem and tried to do something about it. It is obviously desirable in proper and appropriate cases that those who obtain planning consent to enable the

    685
    development of property to take place should be able to obtain their property with vacant possession to enable that work to be carried out.
    This is a case in which it was incumbent upon the Government to bring forward the proper amendment on Report and introduce the point that the Minister made in Commitee, namely, that the person who obtained a planning consent had to carry that into effect. I made that point in Committee, and nothing would have been easier than for the Government to table an amendment to meet the criticisms that were made.
    It appears that we are to have another Rent Bill in the event that the Labour Party is returned to power at the next election. This amendment will be a happy dream for Government Members to take away and think about, and the next time the Minister makes a speech on this subject, which may be in 10 or 15 years' time, he may find that his dreams are no longer realistic because by that time we in turn will have brought in amending legislation to deal with the hotch-potch of trouble that the Bill will produce. We shall have to introduce measures to put right many omissions, if nothing else. One of the first which I am sure my right hon. Friend will look at will be the problem of seeing that planning permission can be given proper effect to, to enable renewals to take place and other matters to be properly dealt with.
    1.15 a.m.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The Government have exploited the difficulties caused by the fact that the debates in Committee were not readily available to back benchers, and have made use of the fact that my amendment does not cover the point raised in Committee in order to defeat it here. This is an illegitimate device to defeat a back bencher who has made a valid point. It does no credit to the Under-Secretary that he has smugly produced the same argument. He ought to realise that my point was sincere and that his point was merely a drafting amendment to my proposal.
    The hon. Gentleman has done himself no credit in the way that he has attacked
    686
    the amendment. Had he wished to resist it simply on the ground that he wishes to ossify the housing situation, well and good; let him do that. But to pretend that he has to reject the clause as drafted, on his own grounds, as he rejected it in Committee, because he cannot find a way of amending it to cover his point, which could not have been in anyone's mind, is not a valid argument. The Minister has not acquitted himself well in this case. The point remains one which will have to be attended to in the end.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3A, line 11, leave out 'lets' and insert 'let'.
    No. 8, in page 3A, line 29, at end insert:
    'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require'.
    No. 9, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:
    '(3) At the end of Case 10 in Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and at the end of Case 11 in Part 11 of Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 there shall be added the following proviso—
    "Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require"'.
    No. 48, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:
    'Case 11C
    Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 12 months and—

    (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and

    (b) at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date the dwelling-house was subject to such a tenancy as is referred to in section 2(1)(bb) of this Act;

    and for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a specified period

    (i) of less than 12 months, if it is determinable at the option of the landlord (other than in the event of an irritancy being

    687
    incurred) before the expiration of 12 months from the commencement of the period of the tenancy, and

    (ii) of 12 months or more, if it confers on the tenant an option for renewal of the tenancy for a period which, together with the original period, amounts to 12 months or more, and it is not determinable as mentioned in paragraph (i) above'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    (2) In section 80 of that Act (reduction of period of notice on account of lessee's default) at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "or

    (d) that the condition of any furniture provided for the use of the lessee under the contract has deteriorated owing to any ill-treatment by the lessee or any person residing or lodging with him".'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take sub-amendment (a) in line 6, after 'by', insert:
    'any act or omission of'.
    Government Amendment No. 49, Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 11, [Schedule 1], after 'by', insert:
    'any act or omission of'.
    and Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 13, [Schedule 1], after 'by', insert
    'any act or omission of'.
    The Solicitor-General: The House may have noticed that my part in these proceedings has consisted of long silences interspersed with brief contributions. If this speech is the exception to the rule, I trust that it will prove only marginally so.
    Section 80 of the Rent Act 1968 permits application to the rent tribunal for a reduction in the suspension period of a notice to quit where the lessee is abusing that protection. At present the section does not specifically entitle the lessor to seek a reduction where the lessee is misusing the furniture. The amendment inserts that entitlement. I understand that it arose out of an exchange of views in Committee.
    Amendment No. 49 has the same effect in relation to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971.
    As I understand it, the purpose of sub-amendment (a) to Amendment 13 is to include as a ground for reducing the suspension period not only the situation where the tenant has misused the furniture but where he has permitted it to deteriorate by failing to take positive care—that is to say, where his sin is a sin of omission.
    Parallel to these provisions there is a provision in the Bill to deal with

  Clause 7

    FURNISHED LETTINGS: AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECURITY OF TENURE
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 48, at end insert:
    protected tenancies. Grounds for possession there are contained in Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act, and Schedule 1 of the Bill has introduced into that Schedule 3, case 3A which again gives a ground for possession where the tenant has misused the furniture.
    Without seeking to anticipate the argument which may be used by right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 seek to add a similar provision there. That is to say that as an additional ground for possession there shall be a situation where the tenant has permitted the furniture to deteriorate by reason of an omission.
    As I understand it, the point between the two sides is a narrow one: where should the balance lie between protecting the landlord's legitimate interest in his property and protecting the tenant's legitimate interest in his home? Already we propose that the protection for the landlord should extend beyond vandalism to any case where there has been ill treatment of the furniture. If the landlord wishes to protect himself beyond that, he can insert in the tenancy a covenant to the effect that the tenant shall carry out certain specified steps to protect the furniture.
    Where the landlord does not do that, to say that the tenant shall be in danger of losing his home if the furniture deteriorates in consequence of an omission—and, on the wording of the sub-amendment, any omission—would be to impose a very exacting burden upon him with a very onerous penalty if he fails to discharge it. In every home there is some damage to furniture which would not arise if everyone observed the highest standards of care and no one made any

    689
    omission, but for most of us the penalty is not to lose our home.
    The question is: where do we strike the balance? Amendment No. 13 seeks to accommodate what was said in Committee, and I hope that the House will think that the balance is now struck in the right place.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General is rather like the man at the top of the orchestra at timpani who, every half an hour during the symphony, strikes the triangle with a ping—and that is all he does. I had hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman's ping would be very favourable this time.
    I agree with Amendments No. 13 and 49 and will say nothing further about them. I had hoped that the Solicitor-General would be able to welcome the sub-amendment to Amendment No. 13 and also Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. I believe that he has misunderstood the purpose of the insertion of the words "any act or omission". He talked about permitting a deterioration. That is not what the Bill now says—particularly the case in the schedule. The Bill speaks of deterioration by ill treatment. It was said in Committee that the word "ill treatment" implies positive action. This is where we object to it being treated as just that. It may be that deterioration arises by culpable neglect. It has been recognised, for example, that failure to lag water pipes may lead to a burst in cold weather, whereas a good tenant treating the property correctly would lag. It is ill treatment by failure to do the things a good tenant would ordinarily do that we want included in this case.
    It will be very difficult for any landlord, when he finds furniture damaged, to prove that the damage has arisen because of an act of positive ill treatment. There may be many cases where the tenant should look after the furniture and should not damage it by acts of omission or neglect. If such conduct continues, that is the sort of conduct one should have in mind in this case—a case that is supposed to be on the same ground as neglect and waste to the structure in the case of the unfurnished letting.
    As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, in the case of the unfurnished
    690
    letting the word "waste" is used. "Waste" means neglect as well as an act of commission. To put the phrase "any act or omission" after "ill treatment" is taking the matter no further than is recognised in the case of the unfurnished dwelling when the word "waste" is used, because "waste" does not necessarily mean a negative act. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this again.
    I am sure that the case will not be as effective for unfurnished dwellings as the existing case in the Rent Act is in relation to furnished dwellings, in giving toe landlord the right to apply to the court for possession when his property is being ill treated, remembering that when he does apply to the court this is one of the cases in which the court uses its discretion, but I think it is being precluded from using its discretion by the term "ill treatment" which implies such a positive act.
    Mr. Lawrence: I rise only to add one thing to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I did not understand the expression "ill treatment" to be intended merely as a description of a positive act. There does not seem to be any point in pursuing the case which my right hon. Friend is making if the hon. and learned Gentleman means "ill treatment" to cover an act or omission, even though that is not specifically so stated. Therefore, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give us a definition of "ill treatment", when it may be that we shall then all be happy?
    The Solicitor-General: A formal definition of the term "ill treatment" is clearly something which the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give. This is something which the courts obviously work out over a period of time. Anything which would now attempt to narrow that would be out of place. Clearly what is between us is a matter of degree. If what is intended by the sub-amendment is what was stated by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), that is not the effect of the sub-amendment which has been put down. That speaks of "any … omission". A tenant who was guilty of any omission in consequence of which furniture deteriorated would be in danger of losing his home.
    Mr. Graham Page: It means ill treatment by omission—and again I use the lagging of pipes as an example. It does not mean any omission. It means any ill treatment by omission.
    The Solicitor-General: That does not seem to be what the amendment says. It says "any act or omission". But I think it is becoming clear what is in the minds of all of us. If there is to be some clear positive obligation on the tenant to take certain steps to preserve the furniture, that ought to be stated in the covenant in the tenancy. Beyond that, it is very much a matter of what the courts would regard as being proper treatment. Certainly, the intention is not that there should be any very high duty of positive attention to the furniture. It is a little difficult to see what in furniture is the equivalent of the lagging of pipes.
    1.30 a.m.
    If the right hon. Gentleman says that, of course, the courts will interpret this in a reasonable way because they have a discretion, that would be a justification for almost unlimited obligations. The scheme of the Bill, like previous schemes in relation to landlord and tenant law, is that the court shall have a discretion when certain clearly defined situations arise, and to say that we need not define the situation very clearly, that we can leave it fairly loose because the court has a discretion, is not the way in which Parliament has approached these matters in the past.
    Mr. Lawrence: There is a charade—perhaps it is unkind to call it that—which is followed in the courts when the judge says, "Parliament in its wisdom clearly intended this or that". That presupposes that the juriciary expects some indication of intention from the legislature. For the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, "Let us leave a definition to the courts, and they will work it out in due course" is not to do that which the judiciary normally expects the legislature to do.
    May I, therefore, press the matter a little more closely? The line between us, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is narrowing fast, but there remains a lack of clarity on what is in the Government's mind in opposing our sub-amendment (a) and proposing their Amendment No. 13. Do they have in mind something wider than a positive act in the meaning
    692
    of the phrase "ill treatment"? If it be their intention that the expression "ill treatment" should mean something wider than a positive act, I think we could all be happy.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the furthest I can go to make the hon. Gentleman happy—of course, I like to make people happy—is to say that it would be an obligation on the tenant to use the furniture properly. I cannot go beyond that. It is not the intention to impose any high positive duty upon him, or, indeed, any positive duty. If that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, that is the issue between the two sides, I fear. Beyond that, it seems to me that a great deal can be done by leaving it to the courts.
    Mr. Page: Let us suppose that the tenant leaves a cigarette on a nicely polished table. That is not, I suggest, an act of ill treatment. It may be an act of neglect or default, but not what one understands necessarily as ill treatment. I should have thought that that sort of act of omission—omitting to pick up his cigarette again and smoke it—was not necessarily covered by "ill treatment".
    The Solicitor-General: I could not conceive of a clearer act of ill treatment. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) supports me there. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is getting into the kind of semantic difficulties which arose in a different context in the Compton Report—that something is not torture unless one enjoys doing it. It seems to me that the example which he gave absolutely makes my case. I could not imagine a clearer illustration.
    Mr. Lawrence: May I try again?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is being very trying.
    Mr. Lawrence: I shall not be hurt by that remark. I take comfort from the hon. and learned Gentleman's desire always to make others happy, so I shall not be made unhappy by it.
    There must be a duty on a tenant to take reasonable care of furniture. Therefore, at the very least, ill treatment must mean no negligence. Will the hon. and

    693
    learned Gentleman give us at least that, that that is part of the intention in the meaning of the expression "ill treatment"—no negligence?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that we have taken this question as far as we can profitably take it. No, I do not equate ill treatment with no negligence. There might well be situations in which we should want to say that something fell into one category and not into the other. I am sorry, but I do not think that we can carry it further.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 9

    FURNISHED LETTINGS: AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECURITY OF TENURE
    Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 21, at end insert:
    '(2) In section 95 of that Act (reduction of period of notice on account of lessee's default) at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "or
    (d) that the condition of any furniture provided for the use of the lessee under the contract has deteriorated owing to any ill-treatment by the lessee or any person residing or lodging with him".'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

  Clause 11
    COURTS DISCRETION TO WAIVE NOTICES
    Amendment made: No. 15, in page 9, line 8, leave out Clause 11.—[Mr. Freeson.]
  Clause 12

    INTERPRETATION
    Amendment made: No. 35, in page 9, line 39, after 'Act' insert:
    'other than sections (Rent Allowances) and (Rent allowances in Scotland) above'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

  Clause 13

    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 36, in page 9 line 50, at end add:
    'but, in the case of the enactments specified in Part II of that Schedule, only with effect from the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of sections (Rent allowances) and
    694
    (Rent allowances in Scotland) above'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

  Clause 14

    SHORT TITLE, CITATION, APPLICATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'two weeks' and insert 'one month'.
    As it stands, the Bill is to come into effect two weeks after the Royal Assent, but it cannot be printed and it will be difficult for the public to discover what it is all about. There have been no printed copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT. All this would be bad enough with a simple Bill, but with a complicated measure like this it is far worse. It is difficult to determine the effects of the Bill because it is principally legislation by reference. Whole sections of the Rent Act are amended and people will find great difficulty in reading those amendments into the Act.
    We have debated the Bill for 45 hours and so far there has been no filibustering. We have given the Bill careful consideration. Perhaps the Government will say how many new rules will have to be made before the Bill takes effect. New Clause 12 contains a requirement for statutory instruments to be laid and, presumably, since that clause was produced only two or three days ago the drafting of the instruments will not be far advanced.
    We discussed in Committee instructions to rent officers and various other matters which we were told were not far advanced. It will be interesting to know how well prepared we shall be 14 days from tomorrow. The Minister promised that there would be explanatory leaflets. I hope that there will also be newspaper advertisements. I do not know how many issues of the Solicitors Journal will be required to explain the effects of the Bill. A great many solicitors do not follow the deliberations of this House, but instead wait to see what they want to know in the Solicitors Journal.
    Some of the provisions being drafted now to take effect in the fairly near future could include the question of retirement homes, winter lettings, and the solicitor will suddenly find that from two weeks' time he will have to put a clause into an agreement. If the landlord is to be

    695
    protected that does not give him much time. We are asking for a period that is essential in order to give those who must operate the legislation a chance to understand what it is all about.
    Mr. Lawrence: It is a matter of common fairness to all parties that those affected by the Bill should have a reasonable opportunity to digest it and take the necessary steps to protect themselves or deal effectively with it. The social contract does not yet seem to have spread to printing copies of the Bill. Many people will have gone away on holiday and may well not be back until the middle of August.
    The original period in the Bill was one month. I ask that those who drafted the Bill, who must have had good reason for inserting that period, should bring their reasoning powers to bear and restore it.
    Mr. Freeson: It is true that we originally intended the Bill to come into force one month after the Royal Assent. However, we were impressed by the criticism generally, and in particular in another place, that a delay of a month would be unnecessarily long and would place tenants who are under threat of imminent eviction in greater jeopardy. Therefore, by a Government amendment in another place, we reduced the interval between Royal Assent and implementation of the Act to a fortnight.
    That period will give the Government time to mount a vigorous publicity campaign to explain the effects of the Bill and ensure that both landlords and tenants know exactly where they stand under the law. We are aiming to have newspaper and television advertising in the period leading up to and immediately after the commencement date of the Bill.
    To extend the interval would be unacceptable. The Bill is urgent. An essential part of its purpose is to protect those tenants who are at this moment in danger of losing their homes. I would not wish to have to explain to them that the Bill came too late to help them, if we extended the interval as suggested. It has been suggested that a fortnight is not long enough for a Bill as complicated as this to become known. If the problems are as serious as the Opposition suggest, two weeks will not resolve
    696
    them. It is a complicated Bill but it is also urgent.
    1.45 a.m.
    A full-scale publicity campaign, arrangements for which are already in hand, will be set in motion the moment the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and this will ensure that no one is taken unawares, despite the printing experiences, which are bound to have repercussions on the circulation of the Bill. The campaign can be supplemented by additional publicity measures as and when necessary.
    I intend to issue, as soon as practicable, an up-to-date version of the publication produced some years ago in the wake of the original Rent Act, called, "Your Rent and You". It will incorporate the changes made by the Bill and circulate information about it and the Rent Acts generally in a form which will be easily understood. The Government cannot accept further delay. The sooner we get the Bill into operation to protect those it is intended to protect, the better for all concerned.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question about the statutory instruments which require to be made under the Bill. Is he sure he will be able to publish them by the time the Bill comes into operation? It needs to be supplemented by orders. Can he assure us that a copy of the Bill will be available to the public? I know that the situation is difficult but we managed it in Parliament over the past weeks. It is even more important to see that the administrators, landlords and tenants know what is in the Bill.
    Yesterday, the House passed a Northern Ireland order without the parent Bill being available, even in duplicate. No hon. Member could have known by referring to any document whether the statutory instrument was being validly made or not. Such a situation could arise with regard to this Bill. We could have statutory instruments being made when copies of the Bill are not available.
    But that may not be quite as important as having a copy of the Bill available to the public before it comes into operation. I appreciate that the Minister wants the Bill in operation as quickly as possible, but I want an assurance that somehow or other he will have copies available to the public, who have to know about it.
    Mr. Freeson: I understand that the statutory instruments are not required to be issued within the two weeks—or month—between the Royal Assent and the coming into force of the measure. We are all aware of the printing difficulties that the Government and Parliament have been experiencing. I shall do all I can to get copies of the Bill to places where it is important that it should be available. The most important thing for me is to ensure that there is adequate, clear and general publicity and information about the essentials of the Bill. This situation is not peculiar to this Bill. I shall do my best to get details of the Bill in its final published form to areas where it is most important to get the Bill as soon as possible after it has received the Royal Assent.
    Mr. Walter Clegg: What will be the position of someone who suffers because what will then be the Act is not available?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member is so well aware of the legal position that that was almost a rhetorical question. I have undertaken to do my best in the difficult circumstances in which we are all operating. This situation applies to other measures going through the House and also having important issues of legal interpretation.
    Mr. Clegg: May I press the Minister on this issue? He says that he is doing his best, but surely that is not enough. Has there even been a situation when a Bill has been passed by Parliament but subsequently not been available to the public? If so, I should very much like to hear when it was.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 10, line 19, leave out '5, 6 and 7' and insert:
    '(Advance application for registration of new rent) (1) and (2), 5, 6, 7 (Rent allowances and (Power of court in action for possession to reduce period of notice to quit) (1) and (2)'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 47.
    Mr. Freeson: These amendments are consequential upon the introduction of the provision on the advance application of rent or rent allowances and the power of the court to reduce the period of notice
    698
    to quit, a subject with which we dealt earlier this evening.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 47, in page 10, line 21, leave out '8 and 9' and insert:
    '(Advance application for registration of new rent) (3) and (4), 8, 9 (Rent allowances in Scotland) and (Power of court in action for possession to reduce period of notice to quit) (3)'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

  Schedule 1

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF RENT ACT
    Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'Case' and insert 'Cases'.—[Mr. Rossi.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 31, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—
    'Case 3 B
    Where in the case of a protected tenancy or a statutory furnished tenancy any furniture provided for use under the tenancy has been disposed of by the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or any subtenant of his'.
    Mr. Clegg: These amendments are a reflection of a debate that we had in Committee. They would not have been selected had not an undertaking been given in Committee to consider the matter.
    We have discussed the ill treatment of furniture in a furnished tenancy. In Committee I asked about furniture that was disposed of, but not by people of ill intent. We are talking about soft furnishings that may last for a lifetime—carpets and curtains and so on. [Interruption.] It will not help me to be quick for Labour Members to chunter. They would be better to let me say what I have to say quickly, or we shall be here all night. If they want an all-night sitting, I am prepared to have one.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that nobody provokes the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Clegg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You show a proper appreciation of the situation, if I may say so.
    What the Government have done in the Bill is to make a furnished tenancy a tenancy that can last for a lifetime, and not merely one lifetime but perhaps two or three lifetimes. During that time the initial furniture which was introduced into

    699
    the tenancy will be ill treated. It can also be replaced. Anybody who has practised in the law knows that furniture can be replaced not necessarily because of ill will on the part of the tenant. It might be that the curtains are fraying or the carpet is going. The tenant rolls them up, puts them in the corner and brings in new soft furnishings of his own.
    I was told in Committee that where the furniture, particularly soft furnishings, was disposed of by the tenant there would be an implied covenant in the letting that this would be a breach of the tenancy and the landlord could thereby get possession. It is important that landlords should know how they stand in these matters.
    I presume that because the Government have not tabled an amendment they are still saying that if a tenant disposes of the furniture which was part of the tenancy the landlord has grounds for possession. What I said in Committee was that this would be much better spelt out in the Bill so that there could be no misunderstanding of it.
    I should like the Solicitor-General to reassure me that there are ample grounds for possession by a landlord against a tenant who wilfully disposes of a substantial amount of the furniture which was included in the original letting.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has obviously appreciated the issue. The question is whether one leaves this matter to be dealt with under the existing Case 1—breach of an obligation—or adds an additional case of some kind. The matter has been considered and the feeling is that it would be better left to be dealt with under Case 1.
    Most of the situations which the hon. Member envisages would clearly be breaches of implied conditions in the tenancy. If he is referring to a situation in which someone throws away a worn-out cushion, I would have thought that that would not amount to a breach of an obligation or of an implied covenant. I would hope, however, that in that situation the hon. Member would not feel that it should follow that the tenant would be in danger of losing his home.
    In this kind of situation the courts would normally imply an obligation into
    700
    the tenancy to take sensible care of the furniture and not deliberately to steal it, make away with it or behave dishonestly in relation to it, but where what was done was sensible to do in all the circumstances, clearly there would not be any such obligation; it would not be an infringement and there would not be grounds for possession. One would hope that the matter would be better dealt with in that way than by spelling out a whole series of situations and missing out an essential one.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'furnished'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Amendment No. 55, in page 11, line 9, leave out 'furnished'.
    Mr. Page: This relates to Case 3A, which we have discussed in part when talking of the phrase "ill treatment". This is the case which gives the landlord a right to apply to the court and the court a right to use its discretion in granting possession if there is ill treatment of the furniture.
    2.0 a.m.
    Case 3A as worded relates only to protected furnished tenancies or statutory furnished tenancies. It may be that there is furniture in an unfurnished letting. To be a furnished letting payment for furniture must be a substantial part of the rent. Again I quote the case of Woodward v Docherty, where the furniture consisted of all that was esential for living in the premises and yet payment for it was not taken to be a substantial part of the rent.
    By removing the word "furnished" in the opening line of Case 3A I have endeavoured to apply 3A in a case where there is furniture provided by the landlord for use under the tenancy "to use the words in Case 3A. It has been represented to me that this was a rather clumsy way of making the amendment. It is an amendment which I assume cannot be refused by the Government. The principle must be absolutely acceptable. If it is, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will accept a manuscript amendment which would be in better wording. I shall have to wait to see whether the Government accept it, but while I am on my feet

    701
    perhaps I may suggest what the better amendment would be. It would be in "page 11, line 8, Schedule 1, leave out from "Where" to "the" in line 9." I am sure that the principle must be accepted. If furniture is provided for the use of the tenant under the tenancy Case 3A should apply.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I inform the House that if the Minister is willing to accept the manuscript amendment it will be necessary for the right hon. Member to withdraw the amendment he has already moved.
    Mr. Freeson: As a good Socialist co-operator I am glad to indicate our willingness to accept the intention of the amendment, and hopefully, the alternative wording.
    Mr. Page: I am grateful to the Minister. I seem to have scored one mark tonight. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Manuscript amendment made: In page 11, line 8, Schedule 1, leave out from 'Where' to 'the' in line 9.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
    Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 54, after 'tenant', insert
    'under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of his'.
    This amendment tidies up an Opposition amendment accepted in Committee, which requires the rent officer in fixing a fair rent to disregard any improvement to the furniture carried out by the tenant. The amendment obliges the rent officer to take account of any improvement to the furniture carried out by any predecessor of the tenant as well as by the tenant himself. This is in line with the provisions in Section 46(3) of the main Act regarding improvements to the dwelling house carried out by the tenant or any predecessor in title.
    Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for improving the amendment we moved in Committee. I can understand that he wants it to be in line with the provisions regarding unfurnished accommodation. May I ask what value the improvement by a former tenant is likely
    702
    to be to a successor tenant, having regard to the nature of the furniture?
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which I am unable to answer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 13, line 43, leave out from 'dwelling-house' to end of line 44 and insert:
    'may contain the prescribed particulars with regard to such furniture, and must do so if so required by either party'.
    Except where there is a resident owner, the rents of furnished homes will be set by the rent officer in the first place and possibly by the rent assessment committee. When someone wishes to rent, he will have the alternative either of finding out what sort of rent he can get before he decides whether to rent, or of obtaining a tenant and then, having agreed the terms of the tenancy with the tenant, he will go to the rent officer and find out the rent.
    I suggest the latter case is fairly unlikely. It is much more likely, in the case of somebody with furnished premises to let not in his own home, that he will have the notion to find out what the rent is likely to be and will decide whether it is worth putting his furniture at risk or whether he would prefer to take his furniture away and to let unfurnished.
    There are considerable risks in letting furnished—not only in regard to having cigarette burns on table tops, but in other respects too. It may be that the tenant is already lined up, but before the agreement is signed they will want to find out through the rent officer what the rent is to be.
    In those circumstances the Bill requires prescribed particulars in regard to any such furniture, and that means a full inventory. A full inventory is usually undertaken by a professional estate agent; it is a long, complicated and expensive job. If neither landlord nor tenant decides he wants to go to the expense of having an inventory, the rent officer can look at the condition of the furniture, judge its worth, in exactly the same way as the rent tribunal does at the moment. It looks at furniture, it knows what is there

    703
    and is immediately able to size it up and judge a rent.
    It is not necessary for the rent officer to have an inventory except—here we have the suspicious mind of the Minister coming in—where somebody is going to cheat. We must guard against that situation. But where we have delay while waiting for the rent officer to assess the rent, if they do not want to go to the expense of an inventory, why should they? If the rent officer thinks there is a fiddle going on he can insist on an inventory being taken. But it is not necessary to have an inventory—not a careful, precise inventory, at any rate. This amendment, therefore, gives permission to avoid the expense of an inventory if the parties do not wish to have one. If any of the parties wants one, it shall be required.
    I hope that this is a useful amendment, which will save money, principally to the tenant, because ultimately it is the tenant who will have to meet the considerable expense of preparing the inventory.
    Mr. Emery: Normally, I agree with nearly all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) says, but in this case I find some of his arguments not altogether convincing.
    All too often, an agreement that an inventory is not necessary is excellent at the time, because neither party expects a dispute to arise. But where a rent has been fixed, the tenant leaves and another tenant comes in with the same fixed rent, without an inventory two difficulties may arise.
    If there is a dispute and there is no inventory, the dispute may become that much more difficult. There will then be an argument about what would have been on the inventory if one had been made.
    Secondly, in the case of an incoming tenant at the same fixed rent, without an inventory there is the temptation for a bad landlord to remove some furniture about which the new tenant knows nothing.
    I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument that in many cases where there is no dispute, savings can be made. But what worries me about the amendment is that all to often, although there is no suspicion initially that a dispute may arise, it may arise later and be made
    704
    that much worse because no inventory exists.
    I wonder whether my hon. Friend can put my mind at rest about those two problems.
    Mr. Allason: In the case where there is no inventory and a dispute arises, does it occur to my hon. Friend that the loser will be the landlord? It will be very difficult for him to prove that six chairs have been chopped up and removed when there is no inventory listing those chairs. That, therefore, is to the tenant's advantage.
    As for the shady landlord who removes furniture, of course there will always be rogues—but the rent officer will know the one or two rogues who let down the good name of landlords. In their cases, he will be able to insist on an inventory being made in the first place. The vast majority of landlords are responsible and would not indulge in the practices which my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Kaufman: Following that exchange of mutual courtesies, may I tell the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that his amendment gives him the opportunity to traverse some of the ground that the went over on related topics in Committee.
    I feel that I should repeat what I said in Committee, namely that it is a necessary complication for a certificate to contain those particulars which the rent officer must take into account when determining the fair rent.
    2.15 a.m.
    If furniture is to be provided, it is clearly necessary in each case for the rent officer to know how much and what kind is to be provided, and its condition, if he is to determine the fair rent appropriate to the proposed regulated furnished tenancy.
    The proviso—that particulars of any furniture must be included with the application, if requested by either party—is of little value in this context, since many landlords apply for a certificate of fair rent some time before they are ready to grant a tenancy—for example, before they carry out works of improvement or conversion. In such cases there is no tenant to be party to the application. The proposed amendment would, accordingly, be meaningless. I must, therefore, regretfully tell the hon. Gentleman that

    705
    the Government cannot accept the amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 7, at end insert:
    '(excluding any deterioration in that furniture due to fair wear and tear)'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 51.
    Mr. Kaufman: Both Amendments correspond to amendments made in Committee and accepted by the Government.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 51, in page 14, line 14, leave out from the beginning to 'there' in line 15 and insert—
    '(2) In subsection (3) of that section (factors to be disregarded)—

    (a) in paragraph (b), after the word 'improvement' there shall be inserted the words (including any improvement to the furniture provided for use under the tenancy)';

    (b) at the end'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

  Schedule 2

    TENANCIES GRANTED BY RESIDENT LANDLORDS
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 34, leave out 'flats' and insert:
    'self-contained flats or maisonettes capable of exclusive possession'.
    The amendment relates to new Clause 5A, introduced into the Rent Act 1968 by Schedule 2 of the Bill. That is the clause which provides that there is to be no protected tenancy where a landlord's interest belongs to a resident landlord. However, there is an exception in that it shall not apply—that is, it shall be protected—if the building is
    "a purpose-built block of flats".
    In Committee I endeavoured to refine that phrase because I was not certain what it meant. If it means something more than an originally purpose-built block of flats, I think that it needs some such refinement as the words in the amendment.
    I am not sure whether "purpose-built" means houses which are converted into flats. There is some purpose-building about a conversion which produces
    706
    several dwellings or flats where there was only one house or dwelling before.
    I have suggested in the amendment some words which I think define the position rather better. I suggest that instead of
    "a purpose-built block of flats",
    we should describe it as
    "a purpose-built block of self-contained flats or maisonettes capable of exclusive possession".
    If I understand the principle of new Clause 5A in the Rent Act, it is that the landlord, where there is another tenant in the same house and inconvenience can be caused by incompatibility between the tenant and the landlord, should have the right to evict the tenant without necessarily proving the legal ground for eviction, such as nuisance, which is difficult to prove. I suggest, therefore, that the landlord should have the right to choose his tenants in that way.
    If there is a conversion where the new flats within the building are not completely self-contained—to put it another way, where they do not have their own front doors—the situation may arise in the same way in that there is that intimacy between the tenant and the landlord which should give the landlord the right to evict his tenant if there is incompatibility between them.
    To some extent, this is a probing amendment. If I have got the right words I hope that the Government will accept them, because the schedule as it stands will cause some confusion to those who will have to apply it.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I think that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right in saying that the definition in the schedule is likely to cause confusion. If the amendment is accepted the confusion will become even worse confounded, but I wish to place on record that some of us feel some degree of concern about the definition of the resident landlord in Schedule 2.
    I do not think that the amendment will improve matters—in fact it will make them worse—but there is in the Bill a provision that it will be necessary to inquire whether the premises were constructed in a particular way. Bearing in mind that a large part of the furnished

    707
    tenancies are in premises that were constructed some time in the nineteenth century and converted during the last 20 bears, a provision that requires us to inquire into the way in which the premises were constructed but to ignore the way in which they have been converted is disregarding reality.
    I do not think that at half-past two in the morning before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess it is appropriate to suggest that the Bill should be amended. I am only too anxious to see the Bill become law, and I shall accept the provisions as they stand, but I hope that when we have the measure that has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Crosby—the corrigendum measure, as he called it—to correct any faults in the law relating to landlord and tenant we shall consider again the provision defining the resident landlord exemption.
    I urge the Government to look with favour upon the test that would give exemption from the full protection of the Rent Acts to the landlord who has no more than two tenancies in his premises. Where a landlord is letting to more than two tenants, his tenants should have protection, whether or not the premises were designed as a purpose-built block of flats. This is a change which I hope we shall be able to achieve in later legislation.
    I accept that because we are legislating in this way we must ensure that any landlord who lets on the basis proposed in the Bill in the period before the law is changed does not lose as a consequence of any change that we may make later. We should not at any future time change the situation at this stage, but I hope we shall have the opportunity to ensure that such faults as there may be in the Bill are corrected. I assure the Opposition that the faults are not of the kind that they have suggested, namely, that it goes too far and does too much harm. The fault is that the Bill has left too many loopholes, and I hope we shall ensure at some future time that these loopholes are plugged. I repeat my view that if landlords let in the period between this Bill coming into operation and any future legislation they should not be put at a disadvantage.
    I hope that landlords will take that as an encouragement to use the exemption provided by the Bill to ensure that
    708
    more lettings are achieved in the interval before further legislation is passed. But it is wise to accept that there are still loopholes in the Bill and that we shall seek to correct them in the future.
    The Solicitor-General: Perhaps at this late hour one must be thankful for small mercies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) for expressly disclaiming any intention that the Bill should be amended at this stage. As I understood him, he was rather suggesting that the test of whether flats are purpose-built was not the appropriate test. But certainly, I should have thought that, given that test, then by definition purpose-built flats are distinguished from converted flats and the test must be applied as at the time when they were originally erected. That is what is meant by saying that they are purpose-built.
    The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will not have overlooked subsection (6), which states
    "For the purposes of this section a building is a purpose-built block of flats, if as constructed it contained, and it contains".
    Therefore, the test begins when they were first constructed and is then continuous.
    Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour affecting the normal clarity of the right hon. Gentleman or simply my capacity for understanding, but from that point on I was left still at a loss as to the purpose of the amendment.
    The resident landlord exemption is intended to apply where the landlord occupies part of a building which is not purpose-built. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is that the exemption should still apply even where flats are purpose-built if they are not self-contained. What I was rather hoping to hear from the right hon. Gentleman were examples of the kind of situation that he has in mind. Presumably there are still tenement-type blocks of flats, built as flats, where they are not self-contained. But I did not follow why, in that situation, there should be a resident landlord exemption and what was the essential distinction between them and any other purpose-built blocks of flats.
    Mr. Graham Page: Neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor I need pursue this matter any further. He has answered

    709
    my question. I understand now what is meant by "purpose-built" and this settles the point I had in mind in these probing amendments.
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall subside into silence.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 15A, line 24, leave out '12' and insert '24'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 33, in page 15A, line 33, at end insert:
    'and
    (d) any period between the death of the landlord (whether before or after the commencement date) and the date upon which his estate becomes vested in his personal representative'.
    Mr. Rossi: These amendments were raised in Committee. The Minister was kind enough to say that he would look at them again because they raised some legal difficulties and that he would consult the Law Society or some appropriate bodies to see whether the questions raised in Committee were valid.
    The first amendment, in which we seek to substitute the figure 24 for the figure 12, relates to the period between the date of death and the time when the personal representatives of a resident landlord will have dealt with and administered the estate and are able to pass on the landlord's interest to someone else who may become a resident landlord. In other words, we are dealing quite literally with a moratorium period.
    The figure "12" relates to 12 months, which is the normal executors' year. It is a matter of practice that many estates take more than 12 months to deal with adequately and properly. Therefore, in Committee it was suggested that a longer period might be more appropriate and would be fairer to personal representatives. It was that point which the Minister undertook to take up with professional bodies to see whether the moratorium should be extended.
    Amendment No. 33 raises a more difficult legal situation. The assumption in the Bill appears to be that there is an automatic vesting in personal representatives of an estate of a person who dies. With intestacy there is the provision of
    710
    the Administration of Estates Act, where the vesting is in the probate judge. But where a will is left, some authorities assume that the will, because it automatically operates from the time of death vests the estate in the personal representatives. There is a line, however, which indicates that this is not the case. Problems could arise. The Scots have been wise, because they have a Succession Act which states that on the death of a person the estate vests automatically in the personal representatives. We have no such statutory provision under English law as regards wills. There is an area of doubt. It was to avoid any difficulty that Amendment No. 33 was posited, to ensure that no difficulty could arise because of legal uncertainty.
    2.30 a.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for putting the two points so succinctly. He was right in saying that an undertaking was given in Committee to have certain consultations as to the 12-months' period. It is important to get the balance right, if we can. We do not want a longer period than is necessary: only a reasonable time should be allowed during which a tenant does not know whether he is protected.
    My hon. Friends have undertaken consultations with the Law Society and the Scottish Law Society. I am instructed that the consultations were informal but genuine and that neither learned body has expressed the view that one year is unduly short. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the period of one year should be retained.
    The other matter relates to the very narrow point of the vesting of leaseholds in the case of a will. It is true that at one period there was a line of cases which suggested that a leasehold did not vest immediately on death, unlike other types of property. Those cases were all before the Law of Property Act 1925. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that Section 149(2) of the 1925 Act provides that leases can now take effect in possesssion without actual entry, and that was why previously it had been thought that they did not immediately vest on death, because the administrator was not deemed to be in possession as from the moment of death. In consequence of that, the

    711
    learned authors of Williams and Mortimer on Executors take the view that chattels real of a testator now vest immediately on his death; and the same principle would apply to the whole of his estate.
    The perfectly genuine point which the hon. Gentleman raised is satisfactorily settled by the Law of Property Act, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept.
    Mr. Rossi: I am grateful for the guidance which the Solicitor-General has given. In my recent experience a leaseholder under the Leasehold Reform Act fell into great difficulty because of advice received from learned counsel on the basis that a vesting did not take place in executors automatically on death. In Committee I recited the circumstances of that case. I shall not detain and bore the House by quoting the details, which are rather complicated. The circumstances were sufficiently unclear to deny a tenant inheritor a right of enfranchisement of the leasehold interest because there was not a succession in terms. It was because of that case which came to my attention that I felt it only right on this Bill to try to ensure that a similar situation did not arise.
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot comment on the facts of that case, as I have not had an opportunity of studying them.
    But it may be an additional assurance to the hon. Gentleman that in Biles v. Caeser the Master of the Rolls used these words when referring to a tenancy which was in question:
    "It has to be remembered that the title of the executor derives from the will and speaks from the will".
    So the learned Master of the Rolls appeared to have no doubts on the subject.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 15A, line 42, at end insert
    "or
    (c) that interest is (or if it is held on trust for sale, the proceeds of its sale are) held on trust for beneficiaries any one of whom occupies as his residence a dwelling-house which forms part of the building referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection".
    712
    Here again I am broaching a subject which we discussed in Committee. It relates to the situation of resident landlords who hold as trustees for sale for themselves and as beneficiaries at the same time. The situation could arise, possibly between married people—although we can deal with married people on the next amendment—where people buy a house in joint names. This is a frequent practice amongst professional people. Then, for some reason or other, one of the partnership disappears, and the question might arise whether or not the remaining trustee for sale and beneficiary is a resident landlord within the meaning of the Act.
    We were nervous lest there might be an area of doubt here, and I am therefore moving the amendment so that the matter can be investigated by the Law Officers, and in the hope that an explanation can be given.
    The Solicitor-General: The real point which the hon. Gentleman has raised is whether the situation which he has described is covered by the existing paragraph (b) of subsection (3). Paragraph (b) relates to a trust for sale
    "on trust for any person who occupies as his residence a dwelling-house which forms part of the building …".
    The hon. Gentleman has in mind the situation where there is more than one beneficiary, one of whom occupies it. All I can usefully say is that it appears to us that that case is covered. The case of a number of beneficiaries one of whom occupies it is covered by the words
    "for any person who occupies".
    Mr. Graham Page: I did not read it quite as my hon. Friend seems to have read his amendment, nor as the Solicitor-General did. In the new Section 5A(1)(b), on page 15 of the Bill, the necessity is that
    "the tenancy was granted by a person who … occupied as his residence …"
    If the property is held on trust for sale of a beneficiary, it will be the trustees who grant the tenancy, and the beneficiary is the occupier in residence in the building. I understood that to be the intention of my hon. Friend's amendment. In that case, the landlord will still have the benefit of an unprotected tenancy in the house, even though he

    713
    does not fit in exactly with the words in paragraph (b) that
    "the tenancy was granted by"
    him.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that it is my fault, at this hour of the morning, but I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I should be happy to pursue it with him, but I doubt whether other hon. Members would be. Perhaps we can exchange correspondence.
    Mr. Graham Page: It is an extremely simple point. I am sorry if I did not put it simply. In the new Section 5A(1)(b) the condition is that
    "the tenancy was granted by a person who … occupied as his residence …".
    In the case of a trust for sale, where the beneficiary is allowed to occupy the premises which are on trust for sale, as is frequently the case when a widow takes under a will, the person who grants the tenancy will be the trustee. The person who occupies the house will be the widow in the example which I have given. It will, therefore, not be the same people as are required under paragraph (b) to be the same people.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 15A, line 45, at end insert:
    '(3A) During any period when—

    (a) the interest of the landlord under the tenancy referred to in the subsection (1) above is held by a married person; and

    (b) that married person or his spouse or both of them occupies as his or her residence a dwelling-house which forms part of the building referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection,

    the condition in paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be deemed to be fulfilled and accordingly no part of that period shall be disregarded by virtue of subsection (2) above'.
    The intention here is that if the resident landlord goes away, leaving his or her spouse in occupation, the spouse may be deemed for these purposes to be the resident landlord, so that the position of the resident landlord as such vis-à-vis the tenant is preserved.
    The Solicitor-General: The situation to which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) refers is from time to time encountered in practice, and I think that
    714
    the answer is to be found in subsection (7) of the new Section 5A, the intention of the draftsman being to attract the case law relating to the statutory tenant of a dwelling house to this kind of situation where, for example, the tenant's wife remains in occupation.
    But subsection (7) goes wider than that so that, in addition to this amendment's not being necessary since it is subsumed in subsection (7), the amendment might have the effect of casting doubt on the other situations caught by the subsection, since one might have to cover other circumstances—the owner who is absent owing to illness, and so on.
    Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for drawing our attention to subsection (7). The Under-Secretary took us round the houses with that in Committee. First, he told us that we have to go back to the 1968 Act to see what conditions are
    "by virtue of section 3(2) required to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant of a dwelling house"
    When we turned to that Act, we did not find anything there, so the hon. Gentleman referred us back to the 1920 Act, which is repealed. Then, having got a note from the Box, he said that we should look not at the 1920 Act but at Skinner v. Geary. We understood that Skinner v. Geary was the repository of all wisdom, although the hon. Gentleman had been telling us that we needed the Bill because one could not rely on court decisions such as Woodward v. Docherty and everything must be enshrined in statute.
    Thus, we have subsection (7) relying on a decided case. We found ourselves a bit confused after that explanation in Committee, and we wonder now whether the Solicitor-General is satisfied that subsection (7)—after all the highways and byways ending in a decided case—does what he thinks it does and covers the situation which we want covered, whatever may have been the intention of the draftsman.
    The Solicitor-General: Subsection (7) provides that
    "a person shall be treated as occupying a dwelling house as his residence … if … he fulfils the same conditions as … are required to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant of a dwelling house".

    715
    If one wishes to know what conditions are required to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant one looks at the whole of the case law and the various situations in which it has been held that a statutory tenant is in occupation of a dwelling-house. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I did not follow the course to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but that is the intention, and, in my view, the desired effect follows.
    Amendment negatived.

  Schedule 3

    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
    2.45 a.m.
    Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'contract' and insert 'tenancy'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also consider Government Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 52.
    Mr. Kaufman: In dealing with this last groups of amendments I feel it encumbent upon me, in view of the lacerating statements of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), to indulge in an apologia pro vita mea.
    The hon. Member said in Committee that I went round the houses. I cannot think of a more sensible route to take on a Rent Bill. He also viciously accused me of receiving from the Box the information about Skinner v. Geary. I can assure him that Skinner v. Geary may have been a good case to cite but I found it myself and the Box did not intervene in any way. I was passed a book from the Box. I do not carry these books around with me. I found the case myself in a footnote and I should be given credit for that if for nothing else.
    The first three of the amendments in the group bring the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, governing existing furnished lettings by resident landlords in line with the provisions of Schedule 2—future lettings by resident landlords. It is necessary to provide separately for existing and future lettings by resident landlords as only existing furnished lettings will be exempt from full protection whereas both furnished and unfurnished new lettings by resident landlords
    716
    will be exempt from protection and subject to the rent tribunal. Amendment No. 52 is a Scottish version of Amendment No. 44.
    Mr. Emery: Will you accept a manuscript amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to delete a surplus "another" in Amendment No. 44?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not had notice of this. Will the Minister comment on the proposal?
    Mr. Kaufman: I have not received a note from the Box. I have received a nod and I accept the hon. Member's amendment. I share it with him as a happy conclusion to our working together on the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an even happier ending. This is a printing error and therefore no amendment is needed.
    Mr. Emery: May I have from the Minister a definition of the "interest" in line 22 of Amendment No. 44?
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member has led me into one byway which I bitterly regret and I am not going to be led into any more.
    Mr. Emery: As this interest is related to paragraph (c) and there are two references to paragraph (c) in the amendment, it is for the Minister to tell us what is the interest referred to in that paragraph.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 43, in page 19, line 6, after 'building' insert:
    'and that building is not a purpose-built block of flats within the meaning of section 5A of the Rent Act 1968'.
    No. 44, in page 19, line 7, leave out from 'lessor' to end of line 26 and insert:
    'Within the meaning of the relevant Part of the Rent Act, under the furnished letting—

    (i) belongs to a person who occupies as his residence another dwelling which also forms part of that building, or

    (ii) is vested in trustees as such and is or, if it is held on trust for sale, the proceeds of its sale are held on trust for a person who occupies as his residence another dwelling which also forms part of that building, and

    (d) apart from this paragraph the furnished letting would, on the commencement date, become a protected furnished tenancy,

    717
    the Rent Act shall apply, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, as if the tenancy had been granted on the commencement date and as if the condition in paragraph (b) of section 5A(1) of the Rent Act 1968 were fulfilled in relation to the grant of the tenancy.
    (2) In the application of the Rent Act 1968 to a tenancy by virtue of this paragraph—

    (a) subsection (5) of section 5A shall be omitted; and

    (b) in section 102A any reference to section 5A of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to this paragraph.

    (3) In any case where paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph (1) above apply but on the commencement date the interest referred to in paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph is vested—

    (a) in the personal representatives of a deceased person acting in that capacity, or

    (b) by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, in the Probate Judge, within the meaning of that Act, or

    (c) in trustees as such,

    then, if the deceased immediately before his death or, as the case may be, the settlor immediately before the creation of the trust occupied as his residence another dwelling which also formed part of the building referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) above, that sub-paragraph shall apply as if the condition in paragraph (c) thereof were fulfilled.
    (4) In the application of subsection (2)(c) of section 5A of the Rent Act 1968 in a case falling within sub-paragraph (3) above, any period before the commencement date during which the interest of the landlord is vested as mentioned in that subsection shall be disregarded in calculating the period of 12 months specified therein.'.
    No. 52, in page 19, line 26, at end insert:
    '1 A.—(1) In any case where—

    (a) before the commencement date a dwelling-house was subject to a tenancy which is a furnished letting; and

    (b) the dwelling-house forms part only of a building and that building is not a purpose-built block of flats within the meaning of section 5A of the Act of 1971; and

    (c) on that date the interest of the lessor, within the meaning of Part VII of that Act, under the furnished letting—

    (i) belongs to a person who occupies as his residence another dwelling-house which also forms part of that building, or

    (ii) is vested in trustees and is held on trust for a person who is entitled to the liferent or to the fee or a share of the fee of that interest and who occupies as his residence a dwelling-house which forms part of that building; and

    (d) apart from this paragraph the furnished letting would, on the commencement date, become a protected furnished tenancy,

    the Act of 1971 shall apply, subject to subparagraph (2) below, as if the tenancy had been
    718
    granted on the commencement date and as if the condition in paragraph (b) of section 5A(1) of that Act were fulfilled in relation to the grant of the tenancy.
    (2) In the application of the Act of 1971 to a tenancy by virtue of this paragraph—

    (a) subsection (6) of section 5A shall be omitted; and

    (b) in section 119A any reference to section 5A shall be construed as including a reference to this paragraph.

    (3) In any case where paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph (1) above apply but on the commencement date the interest of the lessor under the furnished letting is vested in the executor of a deceased person, then, if that deceased person immediately before his death occupied as his residence another dwelling-house which also formed part of the building referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) above, that sub-paragraph shall apply as if the condition in paragraph (c) thereof were fulfilled.
    (4) In the application of subsection (3)(c) of section 5A of the Act of 1971, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (3) above, any period before the commencement date during which the interest of the lessor is vested in the executor as mentioned in that subsection shall be disregarded in calculating the period of 12 months specified in that subsection.
    (5) In this paragraph "the Act of 1971" means the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971'.
    No. 40, in page 19A, line 32, at end insert:
    3.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to the period beginning on the commencement date and ending on the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances) of this Act, and in the following provisions of this paragraph that period is referred to as "the interim period".
    (2) During the interim period every allowance scheme (including an allowance scheme which is the model scheme, as defined in section 20(7) of the Housing Finance Act 1972) shall be deemed to be varied to such extent as is necessary to take account of the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section (Rent allowances) of this Act and of the repeals of provisions of Part II of that Act contained in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act.
    (3) No account shall be taken for the purpose of section 24 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (publicity for schemes) of any deemed variation of a scheme which is effected by sub-paragraph (2) above.
    (4) Where, during the interim period, an authority vary their allowance scheme to take account of the provisions of the subsections of the repeals referred to in subsection (2) above, the variation shall not take effect until the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.
    (5) At any time within the interim period an authority may vary their allowance scheme,

    719
    with effect from the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, to take account of the modifications of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 effected on and after that day by subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances) of, and Part II of Schedule 4 to, this Act.
    (6) In this paragraph "allowance scheme" and "authority" have the same meanings as in Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972.
    4. Subsection (3) of section 20 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (proposals for regulations varying Schedules 3 and 4 to that Act to be referred to the Advisory Committtee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances) shall not apply to regulations which are—

    (a) made within the period of three months beginning on the commencement date; and

    (b) expressed to be made for the purpose of making in either of those Schedules variations consequential upon provision made by virtue of paragraph (c) of section 25(3) of that Act (as set out in section (Rent allowances) (7) of this Act).'

    No. 53, in page 19A, line 32, at end insert—
    '5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to the period beginning on the commencement date and ending on the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances in Scotland) of this Act, and in the following provisions of this paragraph that period is referred to as "the interim period".
    (2) During the interim period every allowance scheme, (including an allowance scheme which is the model scheme as defined in section 17(5) of the Act of 1972) shall be

    '1972 c. 46.

    The Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972.

    In Schedule 3, in paragraph 15(1)(g)(ii) the words "125per cent. of".'

    No.38, in page 20, column 3, leave out line 39 and insert—

    'In section 23, in subsection (1) the words "or making orders under section 25(3A) of this Act".

    In section 25, in subsection (1) the proviso, subsection (3A) and in subsection (4) the words "and orders".

    Section 89'.

    No.39, in page 20, line 40 (Schedule 4), at end add—

    '1973 c. 6.

    The Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973.

    In Schedule 1, paragraphs 17, 19 and 20'.

    deemed to be varied to such extent as is necessary to take account of the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of section (Rent allowances in Scotland) of this Act.
    (3) No account shall be taken for the purposes of section 19(2) of the Act of 1972 (publicity for allowance schemes) of any deemed variation of a scheme which is effected by sub-paragraph (2) above.
    (4) Where, during the interim period, an authority vary their allowance scheme to take account of the provisions of the subsections referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above, the variation shall not take effect until the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.
    (5) At any time within the interim period an authority may vary, with effect from the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, their allowance scheme to take account of the modifications of section 16 of the Act of 1972 effected on and after that day by subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances in Scotland) of this Act.
    (6) In this paragraph "the Act of 1972" means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972; and "allowance schemes" and "authority" have the same meanings as in Part II of the Act of 1972.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

  Schedule 4

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED
    Amendments made:
    No. 37, in page 20, line 38, at end add—

    '1972 c. 47.

    The Housing Finance Act 1972.

    In section 19, in subsections (4) and (6) the words "being a qualified person within the meaning of subsection (12) below", in subsection (8A) paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and subsections (12) to (14).

    In section 23, in subsection (1) the words from "or to the descriptions" to the end of the subsection.

    In section 24, in subsection (10) the words from "or to a person" to "would be a private tenant" and in subsection (11) the words from "or for a person" to "would be a private tenant of a dwelling".

    '1973 c. 6.

    The Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973.

    In Schedule 1, paragraphs 10 and 12.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 41, in line 2, after '1971' insert—
    'and the provisions of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to rent allowances'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    2.50 a.m.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: It is a deplorable custom of the House, but a growing one, not to have a Third Reading debate on controversial Bills such as this. In recent years Parliament has been much weakened by hon. Members not exercising their rights, and this decay has gone much faster in the past few months.
    The Bill might be called a charter for property-occupying democrats. I accept that once it was introduced it was necessary for it to be hastened through. However, I feel that it will leave behind real problems—more than it solves. I accept that it solves certain problems. It will be good for existing tenants, but not so good for the landlords, in some cases, or for people who hope to become tenants in the future. As it leaves the House it has the defect that was noted on Second Reading that it will tend to dry up rapidly the supply of accommodation.
    I think that it was good to do away with the increasingly artificial distinction between furnished and unfurnished accommodation, but the effect of the Bill will be to reduce the total amount of extant housing available for rent. It will
    722
    reduce the level of occupancy of a large amount of extant property, and hence prolong the overcrowding of the rest.
    There is nothing in the Bill that will add to the supply of new houses. It does nothing to increase the supply of new accommodation but it will serve to ossify the market.
    Therefore, although the Bill should be passed, the House will have to attend to housing matters again urgently afterwards, because there is still so much to be done.
    I shall now say something with which the Ministers perhaps will not agree, which is that they have more to learn about housing than they realise. They will learn it in the end, but I regret that it will only be at the public's expense.
    2.52 a.m.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: I want to express on behalf of my constituents their appreciation to the Government for this measure, and my appreciation to colleagues who served on the Committee, who endured a long and arduous session, particularly on one occasion. I sampled for only a brief time what they had to endure and had to leave the room. I am most grateful to them for their forbearance in seeing that the Bill reached the statute book.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the Bill will need improvement in the not-too-distant future, but rather than improving it from his point of view I believe that there are other difficulties about some of the exemptions which may

    723
    be a bit too broad and lead to possible abuses.
    The bald fact is that about 250,000 furnished tenants in London will now, for the first time in years, be able to exercise their rights with regard to health inspectors and rent tribunals. Sadly, like many other hon. Members, I have often had to tell my constituents that it was inadvisable for them to exercise their other rights as furnished tenants, because the consequences might be that they would gain an immediate remedy to the problem but within about three months find themselves without a roof over their heads. The Bill removes that position for four-fifths of the furnished tenants in London. I am grateful on behalf of my constituents.
    2.54 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I cannot resist the temptation of the opportunity given by Third Reading to put on record again that the Bill will reduce the amount of property available for letting. To that extent it will increase stress in the areas that are already subject to stress. Therefore, the Bill will be of no real, lasting value to tenants.
    Too many of our amendments for relieving that difficulty failed to find their way into the Bill. The Government introduced this difficult Bill at a very late stage in the Session, when there was not time to consider it fully, and endeavoured to excuse themselves for doing that by deciding even before the debates in Committee started that they would use the excuse of the Opposition's filibustering on the Bill. I hope that, looking at the amendments which have been achieved by the Opposition, the Government are a little ashamed of that party manoeuvre.
    The Opposition, in serious, constructive debate, achieved a score of amendments; some have appeared today on the undertaking of the Government; others were made in Committee. The Government produced 30 amendments on Report. But it is not a good Bill, and its proceedings have not been rapid, because the Government started off by accusing the Opposition of not treating it properly. Nevertheless, we have made improvements to it, and I hope that to some extent it will be possible to administer it to the benefit of both landlord and tenant.
    2.56 a.m.
    Mr. Emery: I agree that the Bill will decrease the amount of property available for rent, whatever benefits it may, in certain circumstances, give to tenants in stress areas. The Government have forgotten that in other areas, particularly the South-West, the security now given to tenants will dry up the supply of rented property, where there is already a shortage.
    I hoped to be on the Committee. I was put on it but discharged within the hour. But I have read its proceedings. The Government have not taken seriously the effect the Bill will have on certain country districts. I do not believe that they fully understand the situation.
    I put a marker on the Bill. In areas like the South-West it will have an adverse effect, in that many people who want furnished accommodation to rent will not be able to get it. The Bill has a great deal about it that is ill-conceived and wrong. I am sorry to see much of it going on the statute book.
    2.57 a.m.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends about the consequences of the Bill. The Minister has said that the biggest single cause of homelessness is insecurity of tenure in the furnished sector. This is readily identifiable as an incomplete analysis. The biggest single cause of homelessness is lack of accommodation.
    I have been accused by the Minister on other occasions of making the same speech several times. Perhaps he makes that accusation because he does not relish hearing again the reminder of this point that my hon. Friends and I have repeated. The biggest single cause of homelessness, almost by definition must be lack of accommodation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to Labour Members for their agreement, because their agreement shows that they recognise the foolishness of what the Bill achieves by still further reducing the availability of accommodation.
    This is accommodation that meets a wide variety of needs. During our debates, hon. Members have mentioned the many categories of those who seek accommodation of the kind most affected by the Bill—professional people, young persons, single person households, people retiring away from where they have been

    725
    living, students, holiday makers, and so on. All these categories, about whom we should surely be concerned, are affected in various ways. The common factor of the ways in which the Bill affects them is the reduction in the amount of accommodation available, and that is the biggest single cause of homelessness.
    The Minister has said that there is nothing in the Bill to compel people to stay in their present accommodation, and I agree with him to the extent that we are not requiring people not to move; but in so far as the Bill reduces the availability of the accommodation that people require, it will compel them to stay in their present accommodation, because they cannot move unless they can find alternative accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) reminds me, not one new furnished dwelling house, the type of accommodation that meets the widest variety of needs—
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will the hon. Member give me one instance from his own constituency or elsewhere during the past five years when a house has been purpose built and constructed for letting by a private landlord?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the hon. Member is suggesting that the Bill will not have the effect of driving the private landlord out of the market. I have numerous examples from my own constituency and there are others from elsewhere. I have here one letter—it is not well written for it is not from a very rich or privileged landlord—saying—
    "I would like to invite you with one such problem to inspect my basement flat that needs £3,500 to make it liveable for someone to live in it. Here were we with a statutory tenant bought with the sale of the house. Her rent for 10 years was old money £1 10s. a week including the rates."
    So the letter goes on. That is a clear example of the sort of problem that we are up against.
    I have a list of the sort of people who advertised in one newspaper on one day seeking the sort of accommodation the supply of which will be adversely affected by the Bill:
    "Lecturer and wife (no children) urgently require"—
    726
    furnished accommodation.
    "Married lecturer, no children, requires small furnished flat …
    Young married professional couple seek self-contained … furnished flat …
    Furnished flat required for journalist ….
    Perhaps that will strike a chord on the Government Front Bench.
    "Two final year student nurses require furnished fiat.
    Five professional people require 3–4-bedroomed house …
    Two young ladies require 2-bedroomed furnished flat."
    I am delighted that they require a two-bedroomed flat.
    "Lady teacher … seeks shared accommodation ….
    Accommodation for three lady teachers …
    Single lady urgently requires flat …".
    One could go on. A large variety of people require the range of furnished accommodation the supply of which will be affected by the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. Michael English: I have been fascinated to listen to the hon. Member and the three preceding speakers. I think that Members on the Conservative side of the House are so used to being either in government or in opposition—[Interruption.] That is the whole point. They have not quite understood this Parliament. I have been listening with fascination to the discussion. According to the last four speakers, the Bill is wholly evil. Can the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) tell me why Members on his side are allowing it to pass?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I must confess that my limited experience of the House is that I have been either on the Government side or on the Opposition side.
    Mr. English: Not in this Parliament.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I should be enlightened if the hon. Member could tell me where else I could find myself than on one or other of those two sets of benches. If one is privileged to be here, one happens to be either in government or in opposition.
    Mr. English: Not in this Parliament.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In this Parliament, perhaps, we are reminded that we are all minorities. If, indeed, we are all minorities, surely it is all the more

    727
    important that we do not, for doctrinaire or dogmatic reasons, introduce measures that will adversely affect a large number of people, and many of those who will be most adversely affected are the people in the community who are perhaps more in need of help than many others.
    Everything that we have heard in the fairly lengthy discussions both upstairs in Committee and here in the House tends to reinforce my opinion that the Bill will have entirely undesirable effects. The most charitable view I can take of the Government's position is that they have not appreciated the consequences of their own legislation.
    I should like to place on record my opinion that the Bill will result in accommodation that might otherwise be available for letting not being so available—in some cases being kept empty—and those who seek that accommodation becoming homeless in some cases because the accommodation is not available and in other cases being unable to move to the accommodation they want, where they want it, because there is nothing to meet their needs.
    I hope that there will be an early opportunity not only to put into good, simple order the complicated provisions of this rushed legislation but to correct some of the damage that it will do to the supply of accommodation, particularly furnished accommodation.
    3.9 a.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to be brief because we have already spoken at very great length—certainly I have done so—on the Bill. I believe that it provides a charter for the furnished tenant. I believe that it will do some good in the stress areas that one or two hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, and one or two on this side of the House also, have to look after.
    In some of the constituencies it will deal with the case of the furnished tenant who, rightly, regards his tenancy as his home. Where it is his home he is entitled to some security of tenure. It is in those circumstances that the Government have a valid point. That does not answer the real case. The true case is that the Bill goes much wider than was necessary to achieve its purpose. It
    728
    takes in an enormous area which the Government did not need to grab and control. In that respect it will do a great deal of harm and damage and it will be a charter not only for the furnished tenant but for homelessness.
    It will not only dry up other accommodation; it will mean that we will have to introduce amending legislation in a short space of time to cure the evil effects that the Bill will create. As a lawyer, I do not believe that this is the way to conduct our legislation. I do not believe that the Government could not have introduced the Bill somewhat earlier.
    As usual, the Liberal Party has gone home. There is not one member of that party with us, not even that darling Cinderella, the Liberal Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), who went home at midnight on the first night that we discussed the matter in Committee. The sole representative of the Liberal Party has gone home tonight. This is typical of the lack of interest which they show in a measure of this kind.
    It is sad that we should have to debate an important measure—I say this in a non-party sense, because I would have said the same if my party had done it in Government—in a way which compels us, and I think that is the right word, to assist the Government to get this measure. Once the Conservative Party decided not to vote against Second Reading those of us who found it difficult to support the Bill felt it our duty, as loyal members of the party, to give careful consideration throughout a great many hours in Committee, to the details of the Bill. Certainly no one can charge my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who led us brilliantly in Committee for many long hours, with filibustering or saying a single word which was not uttered in an attempt to improve the measure.
    No one has said it in my instance and they could not. I am not so long-winded and I did not want to be unduly long when dealing with the many amendments which we moved to try to improve the Bill. In so doing I believe that we have been able to improve it. There is no doubt about that. At the same time, we have not had a fair deal. It is not fair to ask the House

    729
    of Commons to deal with a measure which came suddenly out of the Lords, went into Committee on a Tuesday and, then, on Thursday of the same week had a Committee sitting from 10.30 am until 1 o'clock the next afternoon. It is not fair upon the officials who have to guide and advise the Ministers. These officials are able men and women, who have to try to provide the answers.
    I noted time and again that the Minister had to rely upon virtually reading from briefs given to him with great speed and efficiency by his officials. I do not criticise him for that. I saw that he was almost out on his feet. Any human being working for that number of hours does not do himself much good. I have a lot of stamina, as I am sure has the Minister, but I am sure that no Minister would have been at his best after all those hours and without support from his own side, because his colleagues were gagged and not allowed to say a word.
    I do not regard that as democracy. It is a bad example in itself—and is certainly a bad example in terms of the way to deal with legislation. I do not think we will be proud of this Measure. We know that it will need to be amended by whichever Government have to deal with it, whether Labour or Conservative. The Bill has almost every bad feature one can name.
    Let me name one or two. First, I do not believe in legislation governed by reference. It is too difficult for people to understand. It is wrong to govern by legislation which refers back to a 1968 Act—
    Mr. Graham Page: And to 1920.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, as far back as 1920. Now we find ourselves discussing the Bill at 3 o'clock in the morning. This debate will go on record and I shall make it my business to draw it to the notice of the nation. It is intolerable that we should be asked to stay up for 28 hours of debate to try to enable the measure to reach the statute book.
    I do not believe that government by reference to earlier Acts is right. We should make legislation in rent matters legislation which people can understand. It is unfair to landlord and tenant that the Government have now got to put out an explanatory memorandum to try to
    730
    explain the purposes of the legislation. This is not the way to introduce important legislation which tenants and landlords must try to understand.
    It is no good saying that the Government will get the case across in the month of August. Everybody is away then, and nobody will question it. It will be almost impossible for this to be appreciated, because we have strikes in this House. We are not able to see a copy of a Bill which is readable. Even then people will not be able to understand it, because it refers to the recent Act of 1968. Unless one has a copy of the Act and the capacity of being an excellent lawyer, one cannot possibly understand it. The whole thing is a deplorable mess.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Not unusual!
    Mr. Rees-Davies: It is unusual and it is not something to which the House of Commons should lend its name. It is a form of misconduct of democracy, and when we think today that we are trying to uphold democracy, trying to introduce measures which we believe are in accordance with sound principle, this is a negation of the principles for which this House of Commons stands. I have said much the same against my own party at times, and anyone who knows me will know that. I do not think that this is right.
    This measure went upstairs into Committee and had this bulldozing operation. If we had spent last week sitting right through the night, which we could have done—we have the stamina—my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and others would have been prepared to go through another whole night if necessary. But that would have achieved nothing. All that would have happened is that the Government would have said that we were filibustering the Bill. It would not have been true. Because of its many failings, we could debate this measure for a great number of hours. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who has enormous experience of these matters, reckoned that in ordinary debate this Bill was good for at least 20 to 25 sittings. In the ordinary way, we would have had four sittings a week. The Bill would have taken five to six weeks in Standing Committee.

    731
    At the end of that time, we would have produced a measure which this House, whether or not we philosophically disagreed with it, would have regarded as a sound measure to go on the statute book. But in the way in which it went, this is not a measure which is satisfactory.
    I give two examples. First, it is intolerable that the Bill should go back to another place tomorrow in the form in which it is. Baroness Young, in another place, secured a situation for students. Government supporters may not agree with it, and they did not. The other place was concerned to ensure that the student situation should be clarified. It was concerned to ensure that by October the students would be able to have accommodation. It was very concerned to ensure that the institutions and the landladies with the digs would be available to provide it. It passed some amendments. They were bulldozed upstairs. It is true that in response to a speech of mine the Minister indicated an intention to introduce a form of registration. I am sure that he had thought of it beforehand himself. He said that the Government believed that there should be a form of registration for student accommodation. But what is the situation? There will be no production of this registration until, probably, November, December or January.
    Why is it that the Government want to bulldoze through this measure? The one reason is that they want to introduce retrospective legislation. They want to do something which is very naughty. They know that it is naughty. How would anyone like to find himself in a situation where he had entered into a viable contract with someone to let him accommodation for six months, only to find that the Labour Government had suddenly introduced legislation which had been rushed through in a matter of weeks and which trapped the person concerned so that he found himelf subject to an Act which he never thought for a moment would affect him?
    There are a large number of landlords, I am sure, who will want to go on letting accommodation professionally to tenants. It may be that many more will withdraw accommodation from the market. It was wholly unfair to force though this measure at short notice, so that landlords who happen to have furnished accommodation
    732
    at the moment, the tenancies of which are running out in September and October, find themselves, against their will, in a situation in which their tenants are able to remain in control. This may mean that their whole lives and livelihoods are affected.
    For example, somebody who let a furnished tenancy for six months from May to October will now find himself in a position in which the tenant can remain, yet he had no forewarning that he would be faced with that situation. He may have made arrangements for his daughter, who is getting married next year to have that accommodation. I agree that he is not an owner-occupier. He is what is regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as something quite wrong—an absentee landlord. But every landlord is an absentee. There is no such category as a landlord who lives on the premises. If a man lives in the premises he is an owner-occupier. Such people will now be trapped against their will. They will be unable to get back their properties which they may have purchased for good reason knowing that they would be able to use them for members of their households.
    The Bill is a disgrace to our nation. It is absolutely scandalous. It is wrong and contrary to democracy to bring to this House a measure and to bulldoze it through because we on this side of the House believe that we should assist hon. Gentlemen opposite by relieving stress areas. I recognise that they have a good argument regarding the stress areas.
    I understand the views of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)—to refer to him in another light—and the problems that he has in his constituency. I understand the problems of Paddington and North Kensington. I have spent my working life with a knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant. That is why I served on the Committee on the Bill. However, it is not right that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should have used or misused the House of Commons in the way that they have.
    I shall continue to attack the Labour Party throughout the country in the months ahead on a very simple principle—that whilst it is proper to introduce a measure to control furnished tenancies because it is thought to be right, it is not right to do it behind the backs of

    733
    landlords and to giggle about it, as many hon. Gentlemen have, as if it is funny to put them into a position which means that in the end they cannot get out of the obligations into which they have entered.
    That is why I feel strongly about the Bill. That is why I would have voted against it. I am prepared to go on the record as saying that I would have done so, but not because I am against doing something for people in the twilight areas. I would never do that. Indeed, I was one of the famous Margate mutineers who, with Dame Irene Ward, when she was a Member of this House, took 40 Tory Members into the Lobby against Henry Brooke's Act. Let that not be forgotten. I did not believe in the decontrol that the then Tory Government were introducing—I do not believe that we cannot apply control—but I profoundly believe that professional people are entitled to accommodation.
    I think that it is right that young men and women should be given the opportunity of obtaining homes. I am prepared to accept controls where they are necessary. However, I am not prepared to support the way that this measure has been introduced. I think that it is wrong. I do not think that it is in accordance with the principles of this House. That is why I am sorry the Government have handled the Bill in the way they have.
    3.30 a.m.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: I wish to speak only briefly. I am urged to do so because there have been references to what happened in Committee upstairs, and it is appropriate for someone who was on that Committee to say something about it.
    I had to exercise a policy of restraint in what I said in Committee, because if my colleagues and I had not done so we should not have had the Bill before us at this stage or in this Session of Parliament and we should have lost the measure. It is unfair for the Opposition to claim total credit for having probed, tested and improved the Bill, when they know that because of the amount of time that they took to do that they denied Government back benchers the opportunity to probe, test and improve the Bill.
    It is also unfair for the Opposition to blame the Government side for having
    734
    kept the Committee sitting for 27 hours, because there can be no doubt that four or five Opposition Members contributed 21 hours of debate. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) may think that he is not given to being long-winded, but I recall about four occasions on which he spoke for more than half an hour on a few different points.
    I am sorry that the Bill was introduced so late in the present stage of Parliament. I should have liked to see it brought in earlier, but it is preposterous to suggest that such a modest measure as this ought to be in Committee for five or six weeks—longer than it takes to get the Finance Bill through its Committee stage.
    There is another thing that undermines the whole case now being made by the Opposition, and that is that so many of the speeches in Committee revolved round one argument that was put to us again and again and added to with a few rhetorical flourishes and hard cases in the different constituencies. The argument was that the Bill would dry up the supply of furnished rented accommodation.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there were many occasions in Committee when it became apparent that there were points of law that needed clarification, there were references back that were not clear and there were general drafting difficulties—not errors—that needed to be cleared up? I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he looks at the fairly thick wad of paper on which the Committee proceedings are recorded, that there were many occasions on which these matters were rightly dealt with.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friends will be able to measure the length of some of the speeches of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) by extrapolating the length of interventions in the speeches of other Members.
    Nobody takes objection to reasonable Committee points about drafting or legal issues, but repeatedly we saw such points used as a peg on which to hang what were essentially Second Reading speeches.
    A myth is growing up that there is a vast increase in the supply of furnished

    735
    rented accommodation. It is a myth because, if I may pose a rhetorical question, where is the increased supply coming from? Is it coming from the owner-occupied sector? Do we see owner-occupied houses being turned over to private lettings? The answer is "No". Do we see it coming from new constructions? Do we see any houses being purpose-built for private letting? The answer again is "No".
    The only reason for an increase in private furnished lettings in recent years is that there has been a flight from unfurnished private lettings to evade the provisions of security created in the 1965 Act and consolidated in the 1968 Act. I made the point on Second Reading, and I am sorry that it was not grasped then by the Opposition. There is no net increase in the privately rented sector. All that we see within that sector is a transference of unfurnished to furnished in order to evade the provisions for security that were put into the 1968 Act. All that we are seeking to do in the Bill is to restore those provisions for security. The privately rented sector has been in decline for some time—going well back to the First World War, and for very valid reasons.
    I have two comments to make to the Opposition. First, if it is true that it is the Bill which will dry up the supply, why do so many of us see in our constituences private furnished dwellings being emptied of their tenants and put on the market for sale? Why has this been going on for months? If one goes back to the 1957 Act, which abolished security for many properties, one finds that that was followed by a very sharp reduction in the amount of property for privately rented accommodation.
    Finally, there is another myth being created by the Opposition. It is that we have, through the Bill, sought to freeze all tenants in a position of permanent security in all privately furnished dwellings. Of course that is not so. The Bill will still provide for the landlord who has a reason to evict his tenant the opportunity to do so. If the tenant is abusing the property, for instance, the landlord will still be able to get an eviction. What the Bill does is to prohibit the landlord from evicting the tenant on a whim, or because he thinks that he will be able
    736
    to obtain a tenant who will pay a higher rent, or if the tenant merely exercises his right to go to the rent tribunal—which evictions are sadly and regularly the case.
    The Bill will also prevent the case of the landlord who is liable to evict couples without children who reply to an advertisement for couples without children, and who have been unable to find a house and have brought with them children in the fullness of time.
    It is a matter of regret that it has taken quite so long and so many hours of debate in order to get this point across.
    3.37 a.m.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Out of concern for my colleagues, but not out of any lack of stamina, I should like to make only a few comments.
    This Bill is the most important measure of social justice which this Parliament has introduced. It is infinitely important to the limited number of people affected by it. The criticisms of the Bill from the Opposition are criticisms which I believe are not genuinely sustained. They are criticisms based on points of detail and legalistic points which are not genuine. There are defects in the Bill, and it still contains loopholes. But this measure should have been introduced by the previous Labour Government. I very much regret that it was not, but I am delighted that it has been introduced by the present Government.
    3.38 a.m.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hour is late, so I shall be brief.
    The Bill came before the House for its Second Reading only three weeks and one day ago. It was a rushed Bill and now bears all the hallmarks of a rushed measure. It would have been far better if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the Opposition team had had much more time properly to scrutinise the Bill. We should then not have needed now to be talking, on both sides of the House, of producing amendments to the Bill in the next Session. Both sides of the House and the Minister have already made such references.
    I reject the assertion of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the points that we have made are legalistic. They are not. They frequently come from human cases

    737
    where the landlord has a right to regain possession of his property in certain circumstances. They are circumstances in which, if they occur, Labour hon. Members and Ministers would wish to regain possession of their property and attempt to do so. These are human points and human cases. Tomorrow there will be the general batch of letters raising a lot more cases and suggesting many more amendments. The difference between us is that hon. Members opposite do not recognise that a landlord has equity and the right to a reasonable solution to his problems. If they did recognise that, they would acknowledge the need for amendments of the type we tabled.
    Again on the question of the effect on the suply of accommodation there is a fundamental difference between the two sides. The Government side believe that all the needs of the rented sector should be met by the public sector only. We reject that contention. We believe that there is a place in our society for the good private landlord and, further, that those who seek accommodaton would benefit from the provision which the private landlord could and would make if he had the incentive.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will remember that on Second Reading I gave details of the case of a constituent of mine who had converted his home to a number of flats and in the end had to sell the property because the rent he was allowed to charge was not sufficient to service the loan. That was the case of someone who would have provided accommodation if he could have obtained a reasonable return and possession.
    I am tempted to continue but will not do so. I have made our position clear. We hope in due course to pass the requisite amendments ourselves.
    3.42 a.m.
    Mr. Freeson: Tory Members contend that the need for rented accommodation can be met by the private landlord. They had 16 years out of the last 23 years in government. In that time there was a steady decrease in the provision of private rented accommodation, mostly under their Government. Nothing that was done throughout most of those years was able to increase the provision along the lines they say is possible.
    738
    The contention of the Tories is nonsense. Any expert in housing knows this and can prove it, and knows that there has been a steady and continuing decline for generations. There is no indication of any change in that situation. All we have had is a series of rhetorical speeches from the Tories over many years which have produced no results.
    We inherited the most disastrous situation in the provision of rented accommodation that any Government have inherited for generations. It was the inheritance we got from the Tory Government, who produced the worst slump in house-building the country had seen in 40 years. We have been in office for five and a half months. We inherited a programme of 60,000 to 70,000 starts in the rented sector. I am prepared to bet that by the end of this year we will nearly double that figure. The private sector has been slumping under every Government, and under the Tories most of all.
    The Tories have made noises tonight about not wishing to oppose the Bill. I can only say that we welcomed the sea change that occurred after the marathon Standing Committee sitting which lasted about 28 hours. The stories we heard from Tory Members tonight about what they did in the initial stages in Standing Committee were humbug. Up until the marathon, most of what went on in Committee was filibuster.
    Mr. Graham Page: How can the Minister justify that?
    Mr. Freeson: Do I have the floor, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    Mr. Graham Page: It is absolutely unjustifiable.
    Mr. Freeson: It is interesting to see how sensitive hon. Members opposite are.
    Mr. Graham Page: Of course. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we did not filibuster. Did the Chairman of the Committee ever call us to order?
    Mr. Freeson: It is all right for hon. Members opposite to hand it out, but they do not like receiving it. We have had more humbug from the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) tonight than we had in the whole of the Committee proceedings.
    Mr. Rees-Davies Mr. Rees-Davies rose—
    Mr. Freeson: I have sat through a series of speeches tonight during the Report stage and Third Reading—
    Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to the Members of the Opposition as having filibustered in Committee when not once did the Chairman ever accuse us of filibustering or call us to order for tedious repetition or anything of the sort?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is hardly a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Freeson: I have made my point. I do not intend to repeat it.
    Mr. Graham Page: Absolutely disgraceful!
    Mr. Freeson: I am glad to see that the consciences of hon. Members opposite are pricked a little by my remarks.
    I now turn to the last point that I wish to make on this Bill.
    Mr. Graham Page: Thank goodness.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The Minister is not improving the Bill.
    Mr. Graham Page: Nor is he improving himself.
    Mr. Freeson: I think we are getting a lot of silly, rude, arrogant interruptions.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: The Minister is so damned arrogant.
    Mr. Freeson: It is interesting to see the reactions of hon. Members opposite. We have had none of this come-back until now. Now we are giving what we have been receiving.
    I wish to make one last point about this Bill, and it covers two aspects. One is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this kind of legislation has any effect on the rate of loss of rented accommodation from the housing market. There has been no experience to indicate this in the past. All the assertions to the contrary do not prove the point. The history of housing loss in the rented field supports the opposite view—not the view that has been expressed by hon. Members opposite.
    This leads me to my last point. We have been waiting for a long time to give
    740
    justice to the furnished tenants. We are proud to have taken the opportunity to introduce this Bill and to have seen it through the Committee and other stages. It will be welcome. It is an act of social justice for which hundreds of thousands of families have been waiting for far too long.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES
3.47 a.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that further provision with respect to allowances, facilities and other payments for Members of this House should be made as follows:—

(1) the rate of the allowance which under the Resolution of this House of 20th December 1971 is now payable to certain Members of this House as a supplementary London allowance should be increased, in respect of periods after 1st August 1974, to £228 a year;

(2) the limit of £750 on the allowance which, under the Resolution of 20th December 1971, is now payable in respect of additional expenses necessarily incurred by certain Members of this House staying overnight away from their only or main residences for the purposes of performing their parliamentary duties should be replaced by a limit of—

(a) £950 for the period of twelve months from 1st April 1974 to 31st March 1975, and

(b) £1,050 for any subsequent period of twelve months beginning on 1st April;

(3) the limit of £1,000 on the allowance which, in accordance with the Resolution of 20th December 1971, is now payable to Members of this House in respect of expenses incurred for their parliamentary duties on secretarial assistance should be replaced by a limit of—

(a) £1,500 for the period of twelve months from 1st April 1974 to 31st March 1975 and;

(b) £1,750 for any subsequent period of twelve months beginning on 1st April;

(4) the expenses in respect of which, in accordance with the Resolution of 20th December 1971, the allowance mentioned in paragraph (3) of this Resolution is payable to any Member of this House within that limit should (for any such period as is mentioned in that paragraph) include—

(a) general office expenses, and

(b) within a maximum of £465 for the first period of twelve months mentioned in

741
that paragraph, and of £550 for any later period of twelve months, the expenses of employing a research assistant on work undertaken in the proper performance of the Member's parliamentary duties;

(5) the limit on the allowances which, under the Resolutions of 3rd November 1970 and 20th December 1971 are now payable to Members of this House for travel by road on certain journeys should, for journeys commenced after 1st August 1974, be replaced by a limit in respect of the use of a car of 7·7 pence a mile;

(6) provision should be made for any Member of this House who is a Member for a constituency—

(a) falling wholly or partly within Greater London; and

(b) not being a constituency mentioned in the Schedule to the Resolution of 20th December 1971, as amended by the Resolution of this House of 13th March 1974,

to receive the allowance mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Resolution in place of any allowance of the kind mentioned in paragraph (2), if he so chooses.
My business will be non-controversial. This motion gives effect to the announcement which I made in the House on Monday on Members' allowances.
Question put and agreed to.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move,
That the Calculation of Redundancy Payments Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.
I will move this motion as briefly as I can. The purpose of the order is to double the amount of weekly pay which qualifies for redundancy payments. It involves increasing the limit of pay from £40 a week to £80 a week. This follows naturally the increase in average earnings since the Redundancy Payments Act was passed in 1965. It is a sensible and proper measure to bring the rate of redundancy payment up to date.
3.50 a.m.
Mr. David Madel: First, may we know whether employers will have to pay an increased contribution to the fund? The fund has had a rather erratic history since 1969. At one stage it was £17 million in the red, then it moved into the black by £7 million, and then it went back into the
742
red. These fluctuations appear to be entirely dependent on the rate of unemployment in the country, and, in view of the hints which have been dropped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter, there is anxiety in industry as to how the fund will develop in the next few months.
Second, may we know what the relationship is with the Social Security Act 1973 and the different contributions which will be paid from April 1975?
Finally, what consultations did the Government have with industry before bringing in this order?
3.51 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: When answering those questions, perhaps the Minister will acknowledge that the Statutory Instruments Committee found a flaw in the first edition of the order. I commend the Department for correcting that flaw and producing a new instrument. I intervene only to point out that the Statutory Instruments Committee does at least some good at times.
3.52 a.m.
Mr. John Fraser: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
We were grateful to the Statutory Instruments Committee for drawing our attention to a defect in the first instrument which was laid. We were sincerely grateful also for the understanding and co-operation of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in helping us to get a further statutory instrument approved by his Committee at very short notice. It was an excellent example of co-operation between a Department and that Committee, to the benefit of the good working of the Department and of the House. I am sincerely grateful for the assistance which we had.
I come now to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). First, consultation. There has been no consultation about the making of this order. I say that with no suggestion of arrogance, and I shall explain why we proceeded in that way. The purpose of the order is to bring up to date the amount of earnings which would qualify for determination of redundancy payments. Earnings have roughly doubled since 1965, and we thought it proper, and not before time, that we

743
should double the range of earnings which could qualify.
The second reason why there was no consultation is that this is a sensitive matter We were anxious to introduce the order as soon as we could. We did not want to have long-drawn-out consultations which might have meant that men were made redundant before the order came into effect because an employer wanted to pay out less redundancy pay than would otherwise apply.
Next, the question of employers' contributions. At present the fund is in surplus to the extent of about £18·5 million. There will be some extra expense on employers and on the fund where someone is made redundant and his earnings are between £40 and £80 a week. We believe that the fund is able to afford that. We believe that it is right and just to do it for people on fairly high earnings, skilled workers, perhaps, whose employment is important for the country's future.
The present contribution is 6·3p per week for men and 2·9p per week for women. It was the proposal of the last Government, I think, that the basis of contribution for redundancy payments should in any event be changed when the national insurance contribution went on to a sliding scale. We have adopted the same scale as was proposed by our predecessors, namely, a contribution by employers of 0·2 per cent. of earnings for which national insurance contribution would be made. That comes into effect in April 1975. I understand that the range of contribution is likely to be between at the lower limit 8p per week and at the higher limit 69p per week. To give one example, for a man earning £50 a week the employer's contribution will be 10p per week on the sliding scale as against an existing contribution of 6·3p, although at the lower end of the scale the employer will pay slightly less and at the higher end slightly more. The burden on employers will be negligible and should not impose any undue burden.
Resolved,
That the Calculations of Redundancy Payments Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. OSCAR MURTION in the Chair]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
  Clause 2

    PERSONS PERMITTED TO CARRY ON INSURANCE BUSINESS
    3.56 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move in page 2, line 24, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
    '(e) a trade union or employers' association (within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974) where the insurance business carried on by the union or association is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits.'
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also consider the two other Government amendments.
    Mr. Davidson: The reasons for the amendments are the same in each case. The Bill is a consolidation measure and the amendments are non-controversial. They are all technical and they are all consequential upon the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act and upon the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which the House discussed at some length earlier today.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. David Waddington: It is important that I should say something not because we have any intention of voting against the clause but because we want to congratulate the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) on his new appointment. It is certainly a great pleasure for me because, like me, he represents a North-West constituency, and he is a fellow lawyer. I certainly hope that he will have a very distinguished and brief tenure of office.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 12

    INSURANCE COMPANIES TO WHICH PART II APPLIES
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    '(3) Where a trade union or an employers' association carries on insurance business, this Part of this Act does not apply to it as an insurance company if the insurance business is limited to the provisions for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits.
    In this subsection "trade union" and "employers' association" have the same meanings respectively as they have in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
    Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 13 to 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule I agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: In page 69, leave out lines 42 to 45.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
    Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to, with amendments.

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
4.2 a.m.
The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I beg to move,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350 per annum;

(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64 per annum;

(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40 per annum; and

(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 to £16,475·28 per annum.

746
and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rates be 1st January 1974.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that for the convenience of the House we debate at the same time the motion relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner:
That the yearly rate of the salary payable to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350;

(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64;

(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40; and

(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 to £16,475·28,

and the date from which this Resolution is to take effect be 1st January 1974.
The motions just seek to ensure that both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner remain at the same level of pay as a Permanent Secretary. The motions bring these two salaries into line.
4.3 a.m.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The salaries with which the motions deal appear grotesque to the average worker in this country, where average earnings are of the order of £40 a week. If we are to set an example, I believe that one area where a sacrifice can be made is in the so-called top salaries.
When the ordinary person sees us approving such a salary, even though the increases are not enormous in relation to the salary, he looks askance at that level of income. People are led to believe that there is a section of the community that is very well off and a vast proportion of the community that is not so well off and, therefore, has to organise and battle to secure a modest increase in income. On such occasions when salaries of this level are being bandied about, one should protest and say that one example to the rest of the nation would be by salaries of this range being kept at least to their existing level, if not curtailed. Only in this way can we persuade the rest of the nation that there is a genuine attempt to redistribute wealth.
I believe that the Government are making, a genuine effort to redistribute

747
wealth, and I hope that they will continue on that path for a much longer period, but it would be nice to think that the élitist group of people were prepared to make sacrifices as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptoller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350 per annum;

(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64 per annum;

(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40 per annum; and

(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 to £16,475·28 per annum,

and the date from which under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rates be 1st January 1974.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (SALARY)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That the yearly rate of the salary payable to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350;

(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64;

(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40; and

(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 £16,475·28,

and the date from which this Resolution is to take effect be 1st January 1974.—[Mr. Sheldon.]

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
  Clause 8

    DEFAMATION ACTIONS
    Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'words' and insert matter'.
    4.8 a.m.
    Mr. Piers Dixon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we shall consider the following:
    No. 36, in page 11, line 4, leave out "tending to show" and insert "imputing".
    No. 38, in page 11, line 8, leave out from "shall" to "an" in line 9 and insert "affect".
    No. 39, in page 11, line 14, leave out "(6)".
    No. 42, in page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
    "(5) A defendant in any such action shall not by virtue of subsection (3) above, be entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice."
    No. 43, in page 11, line 40, leave out subsection (6).
    No. 44, in page 12, line 3, leave out "at liberty" and insert "entitled".
    No. 45, in page 12, line 6, leave out "words" and insert "matter".
    No. 46, in page 12, line 7, leave out from "proceedings" to end of line 12 and insert:
    "if it is proved that the publication contained a reference to evidence which was ruled to be inadmissable in the proceedings by virtue of section 4(1) above."
    No. 47, in page 12, leave out line 21.
    No. 48, in page 12, line 26, leave out subsection (9).
    No. 49, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (10).
    No. 50, in page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (11).

    749
    and No. 51, in page 13, line 26, leave out "tending to show" and insert "imputing".
    Mr. Leon Brittan: I should like to express a grave note of reservation about the defamation amendments. As the House will be aware, this is perhaps the most controversial part of the Bill and it has been subjected already to substantial amendment both here and in another place.
    The basis of the objection is that if the Bill were passed in its original form it would not be possible to tell the truth about a person covered by the Bill and such a person would be entitled to bring proceedings for defamation, and the defence of justification, that the words written or spoken were true, would not be available to a defendant in such proceedings.
    When that became apparent, a substantial and strong body of opinion took exception to the implications for the law of libel. Indeed, one of the most significant representations against this part of the Bill came from the interim report especially issued by the Faulks Committee appointed to consider and look into the whole question of the reform of the law of libel. The relevant passage of that interim report reads:
    "We view with disfavour the creation by the Bill of a special class of person about whom truth cannot be safely told after a specified period. We think it is in the public interest that truth should at all times remain a defence to actions for defamation. It is in our view wrong that a man about whom the truth is told should be entitled to damages on that account. Where it is unfair and not in the public interest to tell the truth about a person a publisher can be charged with criminal libel".
    That was a most authoritative report, and I suggest that the House should think carefully about the implications of legislation in this branch of the law at precisely the time when a committee has been appointed to consider the whole matter.
    As has been said in debate elsewhere, it will not be easy to persuade people of prominence and distinction to serve on committees of this kind if while they are deliberating Parliament, by a side wind, legislates on the subject matter that they are considering and on which they are to report in due course. It is not merely the Faulks Committee that has objected to the proposition that a person should be able
    750
    to sue for libel and it should not be a defence in the circumstances of the Bill to say that the words spoken or written were true. A whole body of opinion involved in matters of this kind rose against these provisions as one man; the Society of Authors, the Publishers' Association, the newspapers and many prominent in defamation law protested most vigorously at the suggestion that the traditional defence, that what has been said is no more and no less than the truth, should be ended by the Bill.
    As a result of the protests, an amendment was put forward in this House making it possible to defeat a defence of justification in the circumstances prescribed by the Bill if, and only if, one were able to show that the publication of the words complained of was not in the public interest.
    4.15 a.m.
    The House of Lords has decided that provision and has introduced instead a provision that a defendant in an action covered by the Bill will be entitled to rely on the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice. The concept of malice is, of course, one that has long stood in the law of defamation. To defeat a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege where such defences run, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was actuated by express malice; but to introduce the concept of malice in these circumstances to the defence of justification would, I suggest, be a great complication and a novel departure in this branch of the law.
    Anyone who has ever been involved in proceedings in which a plea of malice is tried will know that there is no possible complication in the law of defamation which is more prone and more likely to lead to complexities, prolixities and difficulties of one kind or another, both in the trial itself and usually—or at least often—subsequently on appeal.
    I suggest, therefore, that the provision that the defence of justification in the circumstances covered by the Bill should lie but that it should be possible to defeat that defence by a plea of malice is one which is calculated not to simplify the law but rather to complicate it. It is one that amounts to a cutting-down of the traditional defence of justification, of proving that what one has said is true

    751
    and of enabling in certain circumstances a person not merely to be protected from disclosure of his past but actually to recover damages from someone who has said what is no more than the plain and unadulterated truth.
    I suggest that that would be a most dangerous course to apply and that it would be preferable for the Lords amendment not to be passed and instead for the defamation clause, in so far as it relates to the defence of justification, to be deleted.
    I appreciate that the circumstances are difficult in the sense that we are debating this matter at a very late—or very early—hour indeed at the end of the Session towards what may be the end of a Parliament. Those, however, are not factors which are of the making of those who take the view that we take, and it should not have been beyond the wit or the responsibility of those who sponsored the Bill so to arrange matters that it was possible for it to be considered at leisure and for the alternatives to be considered by the House of Lords if this House prefers the course that I am suggesting.
    However, that has not been done, and as it has not been done I think it would be wrong for us to refrain from expressing our view as to the propriety or otherwise of depriving a defendant of the defence of justification merely because the consequence of pressing that point might possibly be unfortunate for the rest of the Bill which is not something to which those of us speaking on this matter take exception.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I think it is understood that it is only Lords Amendment No. 42 which is in dispute. I suggest that it might be easier if we were to dispose of Lords Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 38 and 39 at this point.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
    "(5) A defendant in any such action shall not by virtue of subsection (3) above, be entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice."
    Mr. Dixon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I ask the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) not to press this amendment. Whatever the merits of the argument about this part of the Bill, to press the amendment now when it may be that the result would be to wreck the Bill, which has been through both Houses twice, would, in my view, be retrograde. It is unfortunate that in the course of the parliamentary year it would not be possible thoroughly to discuss this amendment and give it consideration separate from consideration on the whole of the Bill.
    That is the fact. I want to put on record the background of the Bill so that the hon. Member may see what would happen. This Bill was conceived by a committee of Justice chaired by the greatest living expert on defamation, Lord Gardiner. The committee was unanimous that, in addition to the protection which the Bill would ensure for all who had lived down their previous convictions, it was essential that the law of defamation should be changed so that someone could not go round and undermine the central provisions of the Bill by telling other people about a previous conviction which was long since dead.
    The freedom which is now claimed by those who oppose the provision, the great constitutional principle which is supported, is that someone should have the right, after a man has lived down his past, to be able to bring that up maliciously, to do him damage at a later stage and thereby undermine the central protection which the Bill gives. I supported the view expressed by the Justice committee that truth alone should never be a defence in those circumstances. But I recognised that this was a novel change in the law. It is not unknown to law throughout most of Europe, and a good part of Australia and America. There there is already a defence of public interest to claims of this kind, so that, in addition to truth, a defendant has to show that the disclosure was published in the public interest, to help the public, in cases where a man has lived down his past.

    753
    This was a novel step, and, recognising that, I moved in Committee, when this Bill came through the House on the second occasion, that the defence of justification should not be available unless it also showed that the publication of a man's previous convictions was in the public interest as well. Since this Bill left this House and went to the Lords there has been a campaign waged against it, mainly in the columns of The Times, by those who oppose the principle.
    Basically, those who opposed it were people who were either on the Faulks Committee or associated with people who were on that committee. The Faulks Committee has taken the view that justification should be a defence in defamation at all stages, for all purposes. That is perfectly understandable. All I have said is that I do not accept that it ought to apply in relation to previous convictions lived down by a man still alive. That is what the House must recognise.
    Anyone—authors, journalists, historians—is entitled to disclose the spent conviction in cases where a man is dead. That is not what we are arguing. What we are arguing about is when a man is still alive and has lived down his past and done all that he could to overcome the disgrace of what he did. Is it right that someone should later be able to undermine all that by disclosing it to the public in a way that will harm him?
    There is a balance of interests here between the freedom of speech of those who claim that they can talk about it and those arguing for the man who has done all he can to live down his past. The balance ought to be allowed so that a court can decide whether it is in the public interest that this true fact may be disclosed again, to the harm of the man who is rehabilitated. The House of Lords took that view. What it said was that the fact the public interest defence would have to be proved by the defendant was going too far. Therefore, the House of Lords changed it, saying that the plaintiff—the rehabilitated person, the man who had lived down his previous conviction—would have to prove in an action for defamation that the defendant had been malicious.
    In publishing these facts the difference in fact for newspapers may not be very great since the burden will be on the
    754
    plaintiff to prove, rather than on the defendant to disprove. Therefore, a man who has lived down his past would have to come to court and say "It is true I had a previous conviction, but I have lived it down, and the defendant has raised it again for his own personal interest." That matter would have to be decided by a jury.
    It seems to me that the better balance was the one I advocated in Committee. I would have preferred to leave the matter there. If we had the opportunity, I might have considered moving against the amendment moved in the upper House, but I recognise that on a Bill such as that which is before us, which is an experiment and which is controversial, some balance of view has to be acceded to and one has to give a little. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the amendment. But the upper House, having dealt with that point, came to a unanimous view on Third Reading, which was unopposed that the Bill was an excellent Bill and should be supported in this House. It had the support of all those who were critical of it when it first went to the upper House. It was supported on Third Reading by Lord Gardiner, ex-Lord Chancellor, and sponsor of the Bill; by Lord Dilhorne, an ex-Lord Chancellor, who was the main critic of the Bill in the upper House; and particularly by Lord Elwyn-Jones, the present Lord Chancellor. It was also supported by Lord Diplock, who moved an amendment to insert malice rather than the defence of public interest. Lord Diplock is no mean contender in defamation. It was supported by Lord Salmon, and by Lord Simon, who had been critical of the Bill at an early stage. It was also supported by Lord Hodson. Therefore, four Lords of Appeal supported the Third Reading of the Bill.
    The Bill also received the support of Lord Goodman, who, in addition to being a libel expert, is Chairman of the Newspaper Publishers' Asociation, which had been critical of the Bill in its early stages. Furthermore, it was supported by Lord Colville on behalf of the Conservative Front Bench. Therefore, I think it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to force his amendment to a Division, which might have the result of killing a Bill that is widely supported.
    The position is such that the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant was malicious, but it means that a man

    755
    would not have all his efforts wrecked by some tittle-tattle in a newspaper long after the man has lived down the disgrace of his past. For that reason I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reflect before he presses the amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I ask the Minister this before he concludes? May I first declare an interest: I practise at the Bar. Will the effect of dividing on this clause destroy the Bill for this Session or not? If it will destroy the Bill for this Session, it follows that it is an important, fundamental aspect of the Bill. What is the position about disclosure during the course of a criminal trial? Let us suppose that I am defending someone in whose interest it is to draw a distinction between himself and his co-accused, who has a good character within the definition in this Bill but has a bad character compared with that of my client. The Minister's reaction to that kind of situation will very much dictate my reaction to what he has said.
    4.30 a.m.
    Mr. Lyon: I can assist the hon. Gentleman easily. In Committee I took out all the references to a criminal trial on the basis that the Bill might be difficult to operate within the context of a criminal trial. But I undertook that the Lord Chief Justice would issue a practice direction which would apply the spirit of the Bill to a criminal trial and that equally we in the Home Office would issue a circular for the help and guidance of magistrates' courts, which would also apply it. But it would be flexible, and it would still be possible for a previous conviction, even though spent, to be used in the context in which the hon. Gentleman referred to it. It would not be a statutory bar, as it would be in other areas. Therefore, this discussion does not affect the issue which the hon. Gentleman has been discussing.
    When the hon. Gentleman says that if this is pressed to a Division and that, in effect, were to kill the Bill and therefore this must be an important part of the Bill, may I point out to him that if he merely proposed to move one full-stop and a comma and the House divided on his proposition, that would kill the Bill. It is not the quality of the amendment that matters. If there was a Division
    756
    and at this hour there was not a quorum in that Division, that would kill the Bill.
    If this Bill were coming on at a normal time of the day, the hon. Gentleman would be able to exercise his parliamentary right to divide the House if he so wished. But if he divides the House at this hour of the night, he will kill a Bill which has been through both Houses of Parliament twice and has now won the assent even of its leading critics in the House of Lords, and that would be regrettable at this stage. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
    Mr. Dixon: I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said. I think that the Minister has answered the legal and other points which my hon. Friend raised. But I want to comment on what my hon. Friend said about the lack of proper consideration which had been given to the Bill.
    I think that hon. Members on both sides of this House and of the other place will acknowledge that probably there has been no Private Member's Bill which, either in its present form or under previous sponsorship, has gone through such a thorough examination. The sponsors of this Bill and the sponsors of its earlier manifestations have constantly listened to the views of hon. Members, especially those of Opposition Members. Certainly they have listened to the views of the Faulks Committee and others.
    All the way along the line, ground has been given. With the positive encouragement of the sponsors, the Government introduced a public interest defence. Further along the line, in another place, there was the amendment which we are now considering and which was in effect a further giving of ground. Perhaps it is not perfect. But we live in a world of realities. We are all sensible men and women, and clearly there must be an element of compromise.
    No piece of private legislation has been given such a very thorough study, and I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to consider this factor. It has been deeply considered and an enormous amount of ground has been given. I can only repeat that if my hon. Friend presses this matter to a Division he will be in danger of ruining the Bill completely.
    Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I used the word "precipitate", but the fact that we are debating an important aspect of an important Bill at 4.35 in the morning at this time of the year is perhaps an indication that the House has not had an opportunity to consider the Bill in the way that it ought to consider it.
    With respect and deference to all that has been said, I think that it would be possible to produce an equal panoply of talent to that which has fallen from the lips of the Minister of people who oppose what is being done by the Bill, even in its amended form. However, I shall not detain the House by doing so, because no useful purpose would be served by trying to produce a competing list of names.
    I do not think that in principle the fact that the Bill may or may not fall should be used in terrorem to prevent one putting forward changes which one genuinely and sincerely thinks are desirable. I remain unconvinced that a fundamental change in the law of libel is called for in the form that has been made. I do not find the reasons that have been advanced either cogent or convincing.
    There is, however, one further factor to which I should refer. We have heard a lot of talk about the Faulks Committee and its report. I hope that the report will come before us soon and that it will contain recommendations which will be incorporated in a Bill which will be put before the House. I have little doubt that such a Bill could include an amendment to this legislation which would have the effect of restoring the law of defamation to what it has been in the past and to what the Faulks Committee in its interim report indicated that it should remain.
    For that reason, and that reason alone, and as I do not object to the rest of the Bill, I do not propose to press the matter to a Division.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

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

AFRICA (DETAINED BRITISH CITIZENS)
4.38 a.m.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Many hon. Members have in recent months put down Parliamentary Questions about British citizens imprisoned in African countries, notably in Malawi, Zambia and Tanzania. I think that this is the first adjournment debate on the subject, but the plethora of Parliamentary Questions and this debate underline the growing concern about this matter that now exists on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised the question of Mr. Andrew Petrie imprisoned in Zambia, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) raised the question of Mr. Miles, also imprisoned in Zambia, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) raised the question of Mr. Coles imprisoned in Zambia and in the last Parliament my then hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, Mr. Soref, raised the question of Mr. Percy Cleaver imprisoned in Tanzania, and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) raised the question of Mr. and Mrs. Mackay who were imprisoned in Malawi.
No one would criticise any country for taking action against criminals or wrongdoers. That is not what I seek to this Adjournment debate, and it is not what any hon. Member would seek to do. What concerns us all is that so many of these people are held under local laws which permit prisoners to be kept without charge or trial for many months. Mr. Andrew Petrie was so held, and so were Mr Miles and Mr. Coles after being most savagely beaten up for no offence whatsoever by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South called thugs in the Zambian Army.
Mr. Percy Cleaver was held for 11 months without trial and when the trial was held it was carried out in secret. I do not know whether it is known why Mr. Percy Cleaver has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, but certain it is that he waited a long time before the charge against him was heard.
Mr. and Mrs. Mackay were held for nine months in Malawi on a Presidential detention order of indefinite duration. Finally, they were tried for having three books that were banned in Malawi. I do

759
not know what those books were, but I bet that they were not "Clockwork Orange" or "Forever Amber" I wonder whether persons going into Malawi are told that the Government feel that possession of certain books is such a serious matter that anyone having them will be thrown into prison for as long as this married couple were ordered to be detained.
When the trial came on, Mr. and Mrs. Mackay pleaded guilty. Indeed, there was little else for them to do. They were fined £200 and sent to prison. It was an incredibly heavy fine and long sentence for such a crime. I gather that the alternative to paying the fine of £200 was for both to serve another nine months' imprisonment.
It was only yesterday morning that I received a letter from a lady who lives in Bulawayo. She writes as follows:
"My husband, Peter Jack, has been detained, by special order in Chichire Prison, near Blantyre since April 24th and I do not know, at this time, if, or when, he will be released. … My letter may not be of any assistance to my husband but I hope it may make the British authorities aware of current trends in Malawi and possibly prevent other British nationals from a similar 'fate'.
My husband is a professional man being an ACCA and FCIS and is a very honest man. Indeed, he is quite aware that to knowingly become involved in misdemeanours he could not only forfeit his position, but his qualifications as well. His position is that of Director of a property holding group and he is a Rhodesian resident."
although he is a Britisher.
"Approximately three years ago he was asked to sort out the Malawian affairs of a trading company owned by the holding group, and subsequently visited Malawi on several occasions to do this. …
In January 1974 we were informed that the Malawian police had raided the company and the home of the Rhodesian manager and his wife. All their personal effects, such as letters and passports were confiscated and the Malawian CID stated that my husband was to proceed to Blantyre to assist them. …
On Tuesday 23rd April he was asked to go again to Blantyre and to sign there for the passports of the manager and his wife, which would then be returned to them. I was concerned for my husband's safety but he stated he was not afraid to go again to Blantyre, as he had not … done anything wrong.
He proceeded to Malawi on April 24th, was arrested and detained by special order, no charges being laid. … The authorities continued to detain the manager and my husband in Chichire prison and said they would be held
760
'indefinitely' if the managing director did not also proceed to Malawi."
It then seems that the managing director did go to Malawi and was imprisoned as well. This lady says
"The charge of late share registration was later dropped and the managing director released within three days of his detention. He seems to be of the opinion that this was due to the intervention of the South African authorities but the British High Commission were unable to help my husband. The latter alarmed me … Subsequently I received a letter from the Foreign Office informing me that detention without trial was quite legal in Malawi."
This lady goes on to say
"For myself, I commend the British High Commission in Malawi, particularly a Mr. W. Jones who has spared no effort to help us and who has both tried to speed up matters and obtained medical treatment for my husband who has a duodenal ulcer. I am aware that things must be rather difficult for the British High Commission at this time, as several persons have been deported."
Certainly British nationals should be discouraged from accepting employment in Malawi at present.
The letter continues:
"Wives, and even teenagers, have been detained in Chichire, which is a far from pleasant experience. Unfortunately, the Malawian police have open disrespect for Britain, saying they can 'do what they like' to British people without rebuke. I hope that Britain will soon take a firmer line with these emerging States."
This lady goes on to say that she has worked with African people for many years and is rather fond of them, but she is upset at what is happening—and what is happening to her husband, as he has been in prison for so long and she apparently has no way of knowing when he is to be released.
Then there was the case very recently which brought this whole situation to my notice—the case of Mrs. Sue Farrow. Hon. Members will know that this quite young lady is the wife of a man who is in Malawi as a technician with the post office. She criticised one of Dr. Banda's speeches. She did this during the morning—I gather that she worked part-time—and was told that she would be reported. She immediately apologised, but they came for her at 3.30 that afternoon and took her away. She had to leave her children. She was not allowed to telephone the British High Commission. When she asked the people who had taken her away about the Geneva Convention,

761
they said that Malawi was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and that she had no right to ask to see the British High Commissioner whatsoever.
Mrs. Farrow was thrown into a filthy prison. She was told that she would be there for 28 days. However, she was released the next day. While there she saw other British prisoners but was not allowed to speak to them. She had a brief conversation with one man who just had time to tell her that he was from Richmond—though whether it was the Richmond in Yorkshire or in Surrey she did not know—before he was taken away.
Mrs. Farrow spent an appalling night. I shall not burden the House with the details of that night, but I know that it is one that will never clear from her memory. She was desperately worried about her children. I do not doubt that she also had some reservations about her own safety. However, she was taken out the next day and given 24 hours to leave Malawi. She tells me that air mail from the country is censored and she said that it has been made clear by the Malawian Government that if the friends of anyone who is at present in prison should contact Amnesty International the sentences will be increased and if any Briton is arrogant—that is the word; arrogance is apparently a great sin—that Briton will be deported. She states that white people are being increasingly badly treated in Malawi.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and I questioned the Minister as to what representations have been made to the Malawian authorities about Mrs. Farrow's case. My hon. Friend and I were astounded to learn that no representations have been made. Later I learned from the reply to a Parliamentary Question that 84 British citizens are imprisoned in Africa. I am not arguing for those who have committed crimes, wherever they may be. I am most certainly arguing for those who have not committed crimes, in whatever part of Africa they may be. Some of those 84—indeed, the majority of them—have been charged and tried and are serving sentences. It is the others with whom I am concerned.
Is it not possible for this country as the head of the Commonwealth to bring pressure to bear on these countries, which
762
are members of the Commonwealth? This is a blatant denial of the most basic human right of all—the right of freedom. As early as 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated in Article 13(1) that
"everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State."
Article 13(2) referred to
"the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
These broadly stated standards are bolstered by the prohibition in Article 9 against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
On 16th December 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, inter alia:
"Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence."
That is clear enough.
Health organisations condemn and deplore what is going on in Africa, and I on behalf of the British people who are held there condemn and deplore what is going on. I strongly resent the fact that these people have been held for months or years without trial or charge and that successive British Governments apparently have done little to stop it.
On the passport with which a United Kingdom citizen travels abroad there appear some famous words:
"Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance …".
Those are, perhaps, florid words, but they are fine words and their meaning is perfectly clear. Those who carry British passports might well say that they are empty words when they look from the wrong side of a Malawian prison.
Is it not possible for the Government to point out these things to Dr. Nyerere, Dr. Banda and Dr. Kaunda? If they will not listen to justice and reason, is it unreasonable to consider that we might cut off the aid which Britain extends to them?

763
On 27th June the Minister of Overseas Development told the House—column 541—that the new aid programme to Malawi should be not less than £15 million and not more than £18 million. According to a Written Answer in column 564 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th June this year, grants and loans in 1973 to Tanzania totalled £222,200, and in the same year the figures for Zambia were £5,500,000 in grants and £2,147,000 in loans. Why should we fund these countries when they treat our people so? The British Government must take action and make it clear that British citizens cannot be imprisoned without incurring the just wrath and effective censure of Britain.
4.56 a.m.
Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly as Mrs. Farrow is the daughter of a constituent of mine.
I should like to put three specific points, and, although I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has been kept here till this late hour. I hope that she will be able to give her attention to these matters because they are of deep concern.
First, are the High Commissions in countries like Malawi making it clear to the Governments of those countries that if an arbitrary arrest, albeit legal under local law, is made in this way, the British Government expect it to be drawn to the attention of the High Commissions at the earliest possible opportunity? No one was allowed to see Mrs. Farrow. She said:
"No one was allowed to see me and my husband didn't even know where I was. It was a terrible time and when the High Commission did find out they immediately tried to secure my release but the Malawi authorities refused to let anyone see me."
This is a basic requirement, which the High Commission must insist upon. If a British citizen is arrested, he must be provided with legal aid and other assistance.
The second matter which I want to raise concerns the circumstances under which British citizens are being kept in prison for offences of this sort for which they have not been tried. Are the High Commissions insisting sufficiently that the conditions in prisons like the prison at Chichire are humane and reasonable? Mrs. Farrow said that she was allowed three filthy blankets and was put into the
764
women's compound which had a small yard and two rooms which housed 30 women prisoners and a number of children. She added:
"There were no beds or chairs or furniture, just two primitive lavatories and a very squalid cold water shower. In fact the lavatories were so awful I didn't know how to use them and one of the other women prisoners had to show me. The whole of the women's compound was filthy and it stank. Lice were crawling all over the place and I was bitten very badly on my arms."
One pays tribute to the work of the High Commissions, to the diplomatic and consular officials abroad, for working in difficult circumstances, but it is a question of the extent to which the Government are prepared to back them. When people are expelled in these circumstances something must be done to protect their interests.
Thirdly, the Farrows lost everything they had. Their goods were confiscated or lost and they had to borrow more than £800 to pay their fare home, having been turned out of the country which was their home at two days' notice.
4.59 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor): The concern which has been expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is shared by all hon. Members in this House. As the hon. Lady said, our concern is not so much for those people who had been tried and imprisoned for offences which have been proved as for those United Kingdom citizens who are imprisoned in parts of Africa before they have been charged and tried.
It is important to point out also that those of us here who are accustomed to the concept of British law whereby in normal circumstances—I stress that, and I shall return to it later—a person must be charged with and tried for an alleged offence and that his guilt must be proved in court beyond all reasonable doubt find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that that is not a concept which is universally recognised. But, as we all know, it is not.
I have discussed this matter with many people in Zambia and in other parts of Africa and I share the concern that United Kingdom citizens should be caught up in this mesh of legislation and

765
be denied what we have long considered to be basic human rights as we have known them in this country.
For many years Ministers of both Governments have taken every opportunity to discuss this problem at the very highest level with the responsible Ministers of the countries concerned. In passing, I should add that there are detained in Rhodesia at this moment a large number of people who are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government but for whom Her Majesty's Government are not in a strong position to make any positive representations, although we do what we can to draw the attention of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia to what they are doing. I assume that the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) were referring to those people as well as to many others.
Our missions abroad have a duty—I assure the hon. Gentleman that they take it seriously—to do all in their power, whatever the provisions of the local law, to press that United Kingdom citizens are brought as speedily as possible to trial if there are charges to be answered, or else released. Governments have been left in no doubt about our concern and about our attitude towards detention without prospect of trial. But in the final analysis there is little that we can do. Although she presented a very concerned case on behalf of these people, the hon. Lady made only one positive suggestion as to a way in which we might bring pressure to bear. I shall come back to that in a moment.
We have to understand, as people who come from abroad to live in Britain have to understand, that when we live in another country we have to accept its laws. This is a fact of life. It is a fact of international life, and, however unpleasant it may be for those who have different rules and a different judicial system, we have to adhere to it.
I remind the House also that colonial rule itself, backed with all the power of the British Empire, not so long ago used detention without trial consistently and not rarely, in the countries which are now so early in their development after independence.
have already said that we all deplore this practice in normal circumstances. But
766
in Northern Ireland, for example, unusual circumstances have forced British Governments to impose detention without trial and to continue it. We have said, as did the previous Conservative Government, that this is essential to safeguard the innocent. We have argued that people must be detained, even though one cannot bring evidence and take them to trial because others are afraid to testify, and so on, and it has been argued strongly in the House that detention without trial in Northern Ireland is essential in order to protect innocent people and because of the need to protect the community against the activities of a minority. I shall not comment on it, but that argument has been used.
Mrs. Knight: Surely the hon. Lady is not equating Mrs. Farrow, the Mackays and the others I mentioned with IRA-connected suspects. Does she put them in context with the distribution of bombs in cars, with people being blown up and the rest of it? The situation in Northern Ireland is entirely different from the circumstances about which we have been talking.
Miss Lestor: The point I make to the hon. Member is that when it has suited us—I am not proposing to argue whether it is right or wrong—we have used detention without trial. The hon. Member for Edgbaston says that offenders in Northern Ireland are likely to cause damage and destruction, and, therefore, we must adopt this policy. Whether she accepts it or not, that is exactly the position of the African countries.
I agree that Mrs. Farrow was never likely to commit acts of violence against anybody, but when we raise these matters the question of Northern Ireland is thrown up at us. The hon. Member says there is not a situation of war in any of these territories. We do not claim to be at war in Northern Ireland. In Zambia and other countries there have been bomb attempts—for example, at State House—and in Tanzania the President of FRELIMO was murdered. Africa, too, therefore, is in a sense in a state of war. These African countries are at war with external enemies. White supremists in the South are determined to overthrow some of the independent African régimes, or at least that is how the Africans see it.

767
These countries are fighting against tribalism which could undermine a new nation before it develops to full nationhood or before it has established the full processes of law and order. At the same time they are wielding a tremendous battle against poverty. We defend detention without trial in Northern Ireland for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, and countries like Zambia and Tanzania have their reasons for adopting these policies. We cannot get people to give evidence against possible offenders, and they probably face the same difficulty. They make mistakes, as we have made mistakes in Northern Ireland. It is the accepted system of law and order in those countries, and we must accept their system if we go there.
Mr. Money: The hon. Lady is being drawn away too much on to a general statement of fairly controversial points without dealing with the specific concern we have expressed. No one can suggest that people like Mrs. Farrow are involved
768
in political offences. I want an assurance that respectable people like Mrs. Farrow who get involved in the mesh of the police background of an African State will have everything done to protect their interests.
Miss Lestor: The hon. Member for Edgbaston quite rightly referred to declarations of human rights which I completely accept, but there is another side to this issue. I will not get drawn off the particular cases. Perhaps I may deal with them in a moment. The hon. Lady raised the question of objections in principle to detention without trial. On the question of Mrs. Farrow—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjorned accordingly at eight minutes past Five o'clock a.m.

DEFENCE
  Merchant Shipping (Indian Ocean and South Atlantic)
  Merchant Shipping (Indian Ocean and South Atlantic)
  North Sea Oil Installations (Soviet Vessel)
  North Sea Oil Installations (Soviet Vessel)
  Singapore
  Singapore
  Rosyth Dockyard (Thefts)
  Rosyth Dockyard (Thefts)
  Land
  Land
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Honest John Missile
  Honest John Missile
  Cyprus (Crown Servants' Injuries)
  Cyprus (Crown Servants' Injuries)
  Overseas Allowance (Northern Ireland)
  Overseas Allowance (Northern Ireland)
  Mileage Allowance
  Mileage Allowance
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Howitzers
  Howitzers
  Spithead (Motor Boats)
  Spithead (Motor Boats)
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Cyprus (Service Personnel)
  Cyprus (Service Personnel)
  Irish Regiments (Wastage Rates)
  Irish Regiments (Wastage Rates)
  Submarines and Frigates
  Submarines and Frigates
EMPLOYMENT
  Plymouth
  Plymouth
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Construction Workers (Safety Helmets)
  Construction Workers (Safety Helmets)
  Manpower—Jobs Ratio
  Manpower—Jobs Ratio
  Training (Northern Region)
  Training (Northern Region)
  Disabled Persons (Blaydon)
  Disabled Persons (Blaydon)
  Insured Workers Unemployed
  Insured Workers Unemployed
  Earnings (Northern Region)
  Earnings (Northern Region)
  Health and Safety (Coal Carbonisation Plants)
  Health and Safety (Coal Carbonisation Plants)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  First-Aid Instruction
  First-Aid Instruction
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Students
  Students
  Arts (Local Authority Support)
  Arts (Local Authority Support)
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Teachers' Awards Courses (Examinations)
  Teachers' Awards Courses (Examinations)
  Church Schools
  Church Schools
  Town and Country Planning (Training)
  Town and Country Planning (Training)
AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD
  United Nations Conference on Food
  United Nations Conference on Food
  Rural Modernisation (EEC Aid)
  Rural Modernisation (EEC Aid)
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Beekeepers
  Beekeepers
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Farm Policy
  Farm Policy
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Flood Warning Sirens (London)
  Flood Warning Sirens (London)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  PRIME MINISTER (FOREIGN VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (FOREIGN VISITS)
  SELBY COALFIELD
  SELBY COALFIELD
  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  ISLE OF WIGHT
  ISLE OF WIGHT
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMISSION
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMISSION
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NATIONAL UNITY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NATIONAL UNITY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  EEC LEADERS
  EEC LEADERS
  PRESS AND BROADCASTING INQUIRIES
  PRESS AND BROADCASTING INQUIRIES
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  CUBA
  CUBA
  PUBLIC BODIES (PAPER SHORTAGE)
  PUBLIC BODIES (PAPER SHORTAGE)
  DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND WEALTH (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND WEALTH (ROYAL COMMISSION)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Parliamentary Papers (Official Report of Debates)
  Parliamentary Papers (Official Report of Debates)
  Mileage Allowance
  Mileage Allowance
  Salaries
  Salaries
  Secretaries and Typists (Pay)
  Secretaries and Typists (Pay)
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Coal Mining (Dust Suppression)
  Coal Mining (Dust Suppression)
  National Coal Board (North Sea Interests)
  National Coal Board (North Sea Interests)
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Offshore Oil Exploration (Anglo French Interests)
  Offshore Oil Exploration (Anglo French Interests)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Taxi Fares
  Taxi Fares
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Chilean Refugees
  Chilean Refugees
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Laslo Virag
  Mr. Laslo Virag
  Guard Dogs
  Guard Dogs
  Aliens (Visiting Permits)
  Aliens (Visiting Permits)
  "Spot-the-Ball" Competitions
  "Spot-the-Ball" Competitions
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  OUTLINE SCHEME
  OUTLINE SCHEME
  Traffic Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Traffic Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Personal Accident Insurance
  Personal Accident Insurance
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EMOLUMENTS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EMOLUMENTS)
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
INDUSTRY
  Political Donations
  Political Donations
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Nationalised Industries (Ownership of Public Companies)
  Nationalised Industries (Ownership of Public Companies)
  EEC Research Programme
  EEC Research Programme
  Aberdeen Airport
  Aberdeen Airport
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Treasury Stock
  Treasury Stock
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Income Tax (Declarations)
  Income Tax (Declarations)
  Iranian Loan
  Iranian Loan
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Pensioners (Armed Forces)
  Pensioners (Armed Forces)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Industrial Companies (Government Shareholding)
  Industrial Companies (Government Shareholding)
  Dividend Taxation
  Dividend Taxation
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Benefits (Taxation)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Meals (Dining Out)
  Meals (Dining Out)
  Car Repairs and Services
  Car Repairs and Services
  Flour (Subsidy)
  Flour (Subsidy)
SCOTLAND
  Sport and Recreation (Expenditure)
  Sport and Recreation (Expenditure)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Ballachulish
  Ballachulish
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Housing (Toilet Facilities)
  Housing (Toilet Facilities)
  Council Housing (Sale)
  Council Housing (Sale)
  Housing (Inverness-shire)
  Housing (Inverness-shire)
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Housing
  Housing
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Salaries and Wages
  Local Government Salaries and Wages
  Off-peak Electricity Tariffs
  Off-peak Electricity Tariffs
  Doctors (Mileage Allowance)
  Doctors (Mileage Allowance)
  Oil Rigs (Law and Order)
  Oil Rigs (Law and Order)
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Schools
  Schools
  Schools (Class Size)
  Schools (Class Size)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Inverkip Power Station
  Inverkip Power Station
  Children's Offences
  Children's Offences
  Doctors (Pay)
  Doctors (Pay)
  High Alumina Cement
  High Alumina Cement
  Crofting
  Crofting
  Police (Complaints Procedure)
  Police (Complaints Procedure)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Mortality Rate
  Mortality Rate
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Family Planning Clinics (Isle of Wight)
  Family Planning Clinics (Isle of Wight)
  Handicapped Babies
  Handicapped Babies
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Free milk
  Free milk
  Medical Facilities (Students Abroad)
  Medical Facilities (Students Abroad)
  Wessex Children's Regional Planning Committee
  Wessex Children's Regional Planning Committee
  Earnings Disregards
  Earnings Disregards
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Pharmacies (NHS Prescriptions)
  Pharmacies (NHS Prescriptions)
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Children and Young Persons Act
  Children and Young Persons Act
  Industrial Invalidity Benefit
  Industrial Invalidity Benefit
  Occupation Allowance
  Occupation Allowance
  Reciprocal Benefits
  Reciprocal Benefits
  Regional Hospital Boards (Finance)
  Regional Hospital Boards (Finance)
  Special Investigators
  Special Investigators
  Supplementary Benefit Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit Tribunals
TRADE
  Lowson Group
  Lowson Group
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Heathrow (Ongar Approach Beacon)
  Heathrow (Ongar Approach Beacon)
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Spain, Chile, Greece and South Africa
  Spain, Chile, Greece and South Africa
  World Commodity Prices
  World Commodity Prices
  Trade Deficit (EEC)
  Trade Deficit (EEC)
WALES
  Livestock Market
  Livestock Market
  Food Production
  Food Production
  Rates
  Rates
  Milk (Production Costs)
  Milk (Production Costs)
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Farmers
  Farmers
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Council Housing (Sales)
  Council Housing (Sales)
  Railways
  Railways
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Welsh Language (Official Use)
  Welsh Language (Official Use)
  Hospital Buildings
  Hospital Buildings
  Hospitals (Costs)
  Hospitals (Costs)
  Carmarthen (Bypasses)
  Carmarthen (Bypasses)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Central Treaty Organisation
  Central Treaty Organisation
  Albania
  Albania
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
ENVIRONMENT
  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Water and Sewerage Charges
INDUSTRY
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Donaghadu (Youth and Community Centre)
  Donaghadu (Youth and Community Centre)
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Housing (Civil Servants)
  Housing (Civil Servants)
  Public Relations Consultant
  Public Relations Consultant

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.
The Viscount Craigavon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

FAIRGROUND SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
LORD CROOK: 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 at what date it is anticipated that the model bye-laws relating to fairground safety and the comprehensive code of practice dealing with structural, mechanical and electrical safety, and with fire precautions, will be published.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the revised model byelaws are now available to local authorities. The code of practice is at an advanced stage of preparation and should be ready for publication by next spring.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. While that report is not as good as I hoped, I understand all the printing difficulties.

CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: 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, following the talks between the Prime Minister and the President of the French Republic, the Channel Tunnel project is to be postponed sine die or abandoned.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): Neither, my Lords. The two Governments will be reviewing the
2142
programme for Phase III of the project in the light of developments in the economic situation and capital markets and will take account of that review in reaching their decision next year on the future of the project, and in any negotiations for the proposed Agreement No. 3.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his courteous reply to my Question, may I further ask him whether, before we contemplate the infliction of massive damage on a large number of people in Kent and Surrey—should the proposed rail link route be incorporated in an Act of Parliament in the next Session—it would not be better to accept now that a commitment to the vast expenditure of national resources on the Channel Tunnel project is totally unrealistic in our times of incessant inflation and increasing dependence on foreign borrowing? Would it not be better to abandon the whole project before such damage is inflicted and before possibly nugatory expenditure—should the route be so incorporated—is committed from the public purse?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I could not accept that. Parliament, by Motions in both Houses, and also by the passing of earlier legislation, has accepted the view that the Channel Tunnel has long-term economic advantages to this country. However, we need to consider various implications before we finally sign Agreement No. 3, and here we will have to take into account the economic consequences and also the state of the capital market. But I am sure it would be the wish of Parliament that the Channel Tunnel should proceed.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, time and time again, when this issue was brought before this House we were not supplied with all the facts on these studies? Also, when ultimately the House agreed reluctantly to a preliminary exploration of the geological possibilities of building the Channel Tunnel, we were given to understand that before they went further a report would be made to this House? Are we still sure that before any major project goes forward the preliminary surveys, with the geological and financial analyses, will be presented to both Houses of Parliament?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords.

E.E.C.: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
BARONESS ELLES: 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 how many members have been nominated from the United Kingdom to the Economic and Social Council of the European Economic Commission and when such nominations will be published.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, since accession to the European Communities the United Kingdom has filled 16 out of a possible 24 seats on the Economic and Social Committee. The current term of appointment of all existing members of the Committee expires on August 22, 1974, and three of the present United Kingdom members have expressed the wish not to be reappointed. The Government have decided that it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to continue to be represented on the Economic and Social Committee during renegotiation, but that it is not appropriate at the present stage to nominate new members to fill the vacancies left by retiring members. They have therefore renominated the 13 members who wish to continue to serve, but will not for the time being be making any further nominations.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that an intolerable burden will be put on the 13 members who have been renominated? Views concerning vital interests of the United Kingdom, including the whole of industry in Scotland, will not be represented on the Committee, and since decisions are taken by a majority on the Economic and Social Committee the United Kingdom's full working strength will not be represented.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, no doubt an extra burden of work will fall on the 13 as distinct from the 16 members of the Committee. But they were informed of the Government's de-decision and the reasons for it and, nevertheless,
2144
accepted renomination on that basis. On the second point which the noble Baroness raised, we do not anticipate any serious consequences to result during this interim period.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his decision in the light of the fact that we are full members of the Community, and that abiding by the terms of the Treaty in good faith includes procuring the benefits for the citizens of this Kingdom as well as observing the obligations? If the views of this Government are to be put to the vote of the British people, they should be told that we are not being represented in the bodies of the Community in order to get the benefits that accrue from full membership of them.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the balance of advantage to this country—this is certainly the view of Her Majesty's Government—is to participate in the on-going business of the Community, as we are members of it, but to do nothing which would prejudice the successful completion of renegotiation.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does that mean that the Government have nothing to contribute and nothing to learn from sitting on this Committee?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, it does not. It means that the Government have decided that there shall be representation within the limits I have described. In this way the balance I have described is fairly maintained.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what do the Government hope to gain by not nominating the full membership of this Committee?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, they will gain their objective of having a meaningful and serious renegotiation which will not be prejudiced; and they will also fulfil their undertaking to the Community that, while we are members of it, we shall take part in the on-going business of the Community.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, how could appointing full membership in any way prejudice the negotiations?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord might ask how the country's position is prejudiced by the

2145
fact that only 16 out of 24 nominations have been found practicable. The whole section has not been filled because of the basic objection of the employees' organisations to be represented at all on this Committee.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us on this side of the House are not happy with his reply on behalf of the Government?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are very happy with it? Is he further aware that many of us would sooner see economic conditions in Scotland and England determined by the Parliament here and not by someone abroad whom we do not know.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is proper that I should address myself to those two questions together because together they give the full answer. Obviously the Government must be on the right course.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, even if the Labour Party insists on sulking on the sidelines where the European Parliament is concerned, surely full advantage ought to be taken of the 24 vacancies on the Economic and Social Council, the advice of which is highly valued by the Commission and by the Council of Ministers?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the advantages are more properly and effectively examined in the light of the results of renegotiation. In any case there is representation on this Committee. It is not as full as the noble Lord would wish; nevertheless it is there. The balance is one of not prejudicing renegotiations while also taking part in the on-going business of the Community.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a rather different question? Can he reconcile why the Government have decided not to nominate any Members of the other place or of your Lordships' House to the European Assembly, but nevertheless have decided to repeat nominations for this Committee?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer is of course that our attitude to membership of the European Assembly will equally depend on the outcome of renegotiation.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, has my noble friend had his attention directed to an article in the mid-page of to-day's Times, and is it not high time that the implications of that article were refuted?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: No doubt, my Lords, but not just yet.
LORD DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, is this to be taken as further evidence to show that, while the so-called renegotiation is proceeding, the Government are not pressing in the Community to obtain the economic and financial advantages which might be obtained as a result of our being members of the Community?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the whole object of the serious and fundamental renegotiation in which we are engaged is to obtain for this country the fullest possible economic and social advantages.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, were we to understand the noble Lord to say that the working class or wage earners did not want representation? Does the Labour Party represent only them?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I was addressing myself to the fact about which your Lordships will know: that this Committee is composed of three sections, including employers' and employees' organisations, and the Trades Union Council has so far not seen it practicable to nominate for that section representing employees.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, will the Minister agree that even these 13 will not be attending after the next General Election?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as I said, it will very much depend on the progress and the results of renegotiation.

PEERS' EXPENSES
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House approves—
(a) the proposal of the Leader of the House, to replace the existing limit upon car mileage allowance available to Members of this House under the Resolution of

2147
November 11, 1970, by a limit of 7.7 pence a mile, in respect of journeys after August 1, 1974;
(b) the raising from £8.50 to £11.50, with effect from August 1, 1974. of the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Lords attending sittings of this House, or of Committees of this House;
(c) the raising, with effect from August 1, 1974, of the rate of the supplementary London allowance payable to certain Members of this House under the Resolution of January 20, 1972 from £175 to £228 a year.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

EGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM (VARIATION OF AMOUNTS) ORDER 1974
2.49 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Regional Employment Premium (Variation of Amounts) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on July 22, be approved. I have no doubt that this matter will be covered in the main debate. Therefore I will be as brief as possible.
This Order gives effect to the decision announced in the Chancellor's Statement on Monday, July 22, that the rates of regional employment premium would be doubled. The Order is made under Section 26(5) of the Finance Act 1967 which empowers the Treasury to vary the rates of premium set out in Section 26(1). The objective is to give a boost to employment and output in the development areas where help is most needed and to bring into use productive resources of labour that would otherwise be idle. The effect is to restore the real value of the premium as it was in 1967. In 1967 the premium was 7 per cent. of labour costs;
2148
it is now a little over 3 per cent., and by doubling it the premium will be approximately 7 per cent.
I think that it will be widely agreed that we need to do everything we can to improve the position in the development areas. I expect the doubling of the premium to be welcomed by both sides of industry and I hope that this Draft will receive a ready welcome in this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.52 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the economic situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not a very exciting Motion or a very dramatic one. It would have been quite easy to make it so by putting down a Motion of Censure on the Government's economic policy and, as I shall show later on, I think that there are aspects of what the Government have done which are more than worthy of censure. However, it seems to me that in this House we should seek to discuss the economic situation in as constructive and dispassionate a way as possible, without the polarisation of the two sides that vote must inevitably cause.
My Lords, at the outset I must disclaim any expertise in economic affairs and I wonder, in a rather heretical way, whether any expertise exists. I dare say that the noble Lords, Lord Balogh and Lord Kaldor—and indeed others of your Lordships with much knowledge of the subject—will admit in their more private moments that things have not always tended to work out according to the rules, their calculations of their expectations, and if they do not admit it, I will do it for them. In fact, your Lordships may remember the occasion not so long ago when a graduate went to his former university and was astonished to see that the papers which were being set carried exactly the same questions as when he took his degree some 20 years earlier, and on asking for an explanation he was told that the questions did not matter because the answers changed every year.
I remember, too, the forecasts which were made by the Treasury during the 3½ years in which I was in some way concerned with these matters, and by other economists. They themselves admitted a percentage of doubt due to margins of error, but one or two per cent. of the enormous figures involved quite often make the remedies or the proposals of any Chancellor more like a lucky dip than fine tuning. Therefore I do not intend, even if I were capable of so doing, to talk about the finer tuning of the economy or the technicalities of our economic management; or, indeed, of the mini-Budget which was introduced last week. I suspect that it was pretty irrelevant, now nearly forgotten, and, on balance, did more harm than good.
My Lords, I should like to speak, if I may, for a short time about those issues upon which we as a country should be concentrating if we wish to survive—to survive, that is, with a growing standard of living, comparable to the standards of our neighbours in Europe. I do not think that any Government of any Party in this country can look back to the postwar years with satisfaction. Of course, there were moments when we were doing as well as some of our neighbours and, perhaps, sometimes better; but, generally speaking, in the post-war years we nave fallen short of what we could reasonably expect. It may be that in a Parliamentary democracy it is necessary for all Parties at each Election to present a prospectus which offers more of the good things of life to the citizens of this country, and in our society perhaps it is not very likely that in ordinary times a Party which promises austerity will be given more votes than an opponent who promises greater benefits and a higher standard of living.
Of course, in our defence and in the defence of politicians, it is equally true that, given greater productivity and a certain amount of restraint at the right moment, we could have done all of those things which we set out to do, but we did not get them. Over these last 29 years we have had a succession of economic crises which have demonstrated very plainly—to the more thoughtful, at any rate—that we have been living above our means and paying ourselves more than we earn, and that we are not producing
2150
enough. As I have said to your Lordships before on a number of occasions, there has been a constant repetition of crises and exhortation in between Elections. There have been the headlines, the call to produce more, the threat that otherwise our standard of life would fall; and each time, so far from the standard of living falling, it has risen. However, nobody has produced any more, generally speaking, or worked harder or, indeed, done anything but look with increasing disbelief upon all politicians. No wonder that a great many people in this country no longer believe what they read about our economic situation, and that they have a strange faith that all these things will sort themselves out without any particular relationship between what effort they put into the economy and what they get out of it.
To give one example, I notice that in some quarters there has been great satisfaction that our industrial output during the miners' overtime ban and strike which caused the three-day week (sometimes we seem to forget that) was at the unexpectedly high level of 97 per cent. Some credit seems to be taken for this, but what does it show? It shows that in three days British industry could produce very nearly as much as it produces in five days. Of course, there was an extra effort made during that period of the three-day week, and of course it could not have been prolonged indefinitely. Even so, I do not draw from that a conclusion which would be satisfactory to management, to labour, or, indeed, to any of us.
What conclusions, then, do I draw from these preliminary observations? I draw the conclusion that at the next Election, which it seems will come in a short time, the country should be told the truth, and told the truth in blunt terms—the truth that we cannot pay ourselves more than we earn; that North Sea oil is no substitute for our own efforts; that there are no such people as "they" who will pull our chestnuts out of the fire. How often have all of us heard people saying indignantly, "They ought to put it right. They ought to see that I get more money. They should not allow that sort of thing to happen. They ought to be ashamed of themselves." The truth is that "they" are all of us—each one of us in

2151
this country who has a duty and a responsibility to look after himself and to help those in society—the old, the sick and the disabled—who cannot produce more, or possibly cannot produce at all, and who depend upon our efforts to make their lives tolerable.
Somehow or other we have to explain to our fellow countrymen that giving yourself more money without increased productivity does not in the end make you any better off and makes many other people worse off, and we have to tell them that it is better to earn money than to borrow it. I think it is very nice of the Shah to lend us a large amount of money on what I imagine will be satisfactory terms, but how much better to be in the position of the French, selling £2,000 million worth of goods to Iran, creating employment and wealth thereby and at the end of the day they do not have to pay it back.
Perhaps the most important truth that we have to proclaim is that if we as a country wish to survive and increase our wealth—and consequently the wealth of all of us—the only way in which it can be done is by supporting industry and commerce. Successful industry is the creation of wealth. If we hinder industry by undue taxation or by uncertainty; if by our actions we discourage investment; if by taxation we remove too much of the profits which go to create further production then we are impoverishing the community as a whole. I hope that we do not deceive ourselves—or rather I hope that noble Lords opposite do not deceive themselves—that by the redistribution of wealth, or to put it more elegantly, as Mr. Healey did, by "soaking the rich", we shall solve our problems.
I do not suppose that soaking the rich is going to be very unpopular, provided, of course, that one recognises that the definition of "rich" is someone richer than oneself. But what is really important is that we should understand that merit, initiative and enterprise have to be rewarded. I find it very odd that an industrialist running a big company, earning for Britain many millions of pounds and employing large numbers of people, should be attacked and abused for earning a large salary when there is no criticism of the enormous salaries paid
2152
to pop singers and entertainers, and the winning of half a million pounds on the pools is greatly to be admired. It seems a curious society in which gambling is respectable but hard work and the creation of employment is not. If we foster the idea that profit is bad then we undermine the whole system on which this country is built, and here I must blame the Party opposite; not all of them, but a great many of them, seem to think that profit is bad, not to say disgraceful, and that high profits are somehow evidence of greed and selfishness. But does it not depend upon what the profits are used for?
If a company is successful and shows a good profit more people will invest in it, and the more people invest in it the greater will be its ability to expand and the more wealth it will create—not just for the shareholders, not just for the workers but for the whole country. If we allow the idea to spread—even more than it already has—that there is something about profits which is not wholly honourable or decent then we are asking for trouble. Besides, would noble Lords opposite rather have profitable companies or unprofitable companies? There really can be no doubt about the answer.
Of course, there must be an understanding on the part of all concerned that profits are used for the good, not only of the shareholders but of those who work in the company and the community as a whole. But for goodness' sake do not let us make "success" a bad word. I suppose that uncertainty more than anything else undermines the confidence of industry. The continual talk by a number of members of the present Administration about more nationalisation has, I think, done more harm to confidence than almost anything else. The "shopping list" which is being continually bandied about; the Green Paper which we are told to expect; the obvious approval with which large sections of the Labour Party and the trade union movement greet any proposal for further nationalisation—all this breeds uncertainty and insecurity in those very people on whom we must rely for our prosperity. I very much hope that any noble Lords opposite who are in favour of more nationalisation—and I hope there are not many of them—will ask themselves why.
Is it because the experience of the last 30 years has led them to the conclusion that the nationalised industries are better managed, better led, that industrial relaions are better, that nationalised industries are more profitable and are more efficient? Surely not. I do not think it would be very difficult to prove the reverse. Some of it, of course, is perfectly understandable. It is not, easy—the Lord knows it is not easy!—to run the coal industry. It is not easy to run the railways, where there is an element of social benefit. But can it really be said that our experiment of nationalisation has, so far at any rate, proved an outstanding success? What makes anyone think that to take a company into national ownership will necessarily make it better?
Does experience lead one to suppose that the workers in nationalised industries feel that they are in closer touch with those who direct their affairs than they were in the days of private ownership? I believe it is rather the reverse. The remoteness of management, the lack of leadership, centralisation, the inability of managers at a lower level to make decisions affecting their own unit, all these have been a great dissappointment to those working in those industries, who believed that nationalisation meant that they would own the industry, manage it and be much more concerned in it.
I do not for a moment suggest that there are not occasions when nationalisation may be necessary. Of course there are. Nor do I suggest that the railways, for example, or the coal industry could return to private ownership. But what I do say is that a very good case has to be made out before further nationalisation is proposed, and it should be based on something more than some ideological dogma that the State should own everything. We cannot expect industry or commerce to operate efficiently, to invest, to be confident of the future, unless there is some certainty that they will be left alone to get on with their own affairs. I think that one of the great disservices that this Government have done is to create this feeling of uncertainty when precisely the opposite is needed.
We then come to the problem which is perhaps more worrying to everybody in this country than any other: the increasing rate of inflation and the evils which
2154
go with it. I do not think that there is anybody who could put his hand on his heart and say that he knows the cure for inflation—or peraps to put it more accurately, a cure for inflation which would be acceptable in a social democracy. There are of course certain matters over which we have no control. We have no control over the price of raw materials from overseas, on which we depend for our industry and for much of our food. If I may say so, I think it was a pity that that fact was not acknowledged by the Labour Party before and during the Election campaign. It has been acknowledged since.
However, events have taken a turn for the better. Commodity prices are falling and the external causes of inflation may well disappear in what one hopes may be a comparatively short time. What we are now faced with is our own domestic inflation, which will be largely caused (unless we do something about it) by wage increases. Here we have come to a problem for which nobody has found an answer. To put it bluntly, the problem is the monopoly of trade union power.
Both major political Parties have reversed their policies while in Government. Both of them started with the express intention of maintaining a voluntary incomes policy, and both of them were driven—much against their will and really for the same reasons—to a statutory policy. Both of them knew that the maintenance of a statutory policy was going to be extraordinarily difficult, and yet both felt that in the circumstances it was the only course. The present Administration had decided to do away with a statutory policy and to rely on the social contract. I would be the last person to wish to see that fail, because if it could be made to operate successfully it would show an understanding on the part of the Government and of trade unions and workers of the responsibilities and duties of each other. But it would be dishonest of me not to say that I am a little sceptical about it.
My Lords, of course it will work if the Government allow all wage claims to be granted in order to save trouble. But that is not much of a social contract; indeed, it is not anything at all. I fear that in the autumn the strains of a social contract will be very great indeed, and it will take more resolution than the

2155
Administration has so far shown, and more leadership than the T.U.C. has so far seemed prepared to give, if the social contract is to be a satisfactory substitute for an incomes policy. I think that noble Lords opposite and, indeed, anywhere, can fairly say, "All right, then what do you do?" If it is possible to have a voluntary incomes policy, it is infinitely better than a statutory incomes policy. But I do not believe that any Government can just sit back and do nothing in the face of the appalling problems that wage increases and consequently inflation will bring to the people of this country.
Therefore, it seems to me that the only way in which a voluntary policy or, indeed, a statutory policy can ever be made to work is to mobilise public opinion on the side of moderation by making the ordinary man and woman understand the problems which beset this country. I believe, too, that as a very first priority we should increase the involvement of workers in their industries, to relate the success of an enterprise with the benefits which workers can get from that success. I do not believe, for example, that in the motor industry in these last few years that the lessons that can be learned can encourage moderates to feel that greater productivity will bring them bigger incomes. On the contrary, it seems that militancy and strikes bring high wages from management who give in, or are forced to give in to higher wage claims with no greater productivity. We must convince our fellow-countrymen that the only real and safe way to get higher wages is by higher production, and that we are on the slippery slope if we believe otherwise.
The truth of the matter is that there are really only two ways of doing something about inflation. One is by adopting a monetary and economic policy which would create considerable hardship for the people of this country, with much unemployment, and by measures which would, to a great many of us, be totally unacceptable except at a moment of very great crisis. The other way is by good sense, by a combination of monetary measures and restraint and responsibility on the part of all of us—not just the workers, not just the management, but all of us. In order to achieve that, there will have to be a very much greater
2156
effort on the part of the political Parties to present these truths and not disguise them, not to pretend things are other than they are. For if we do, we shall find that the grave crisis of which I spoke is not all that far away; and the unacceptable consequences and remedies are there, too.
My Lords, what conclusions, then, do I come to? We must tell the truth and not disguise it. That is up to us. Any political Party which promises in the near future a lot of nice things for the people of the country is being deceitful; and, incidentally, any Party which proposes nationalisation as a remedy for our ills has its head stuck in the sand. We can say there is nothing in our situation that is even remotely hopeless, there is nothing in our situation which cannot be put right. Just consider the state of Germany, or of Japan, after the war, and see what they have achieved from a base a thousand times worse than ours to-day. But we must have self-discipline to do it. We must look carefully at Government expenditure and local government expenditure, and contain it.
A lot of what we would like to see happen must be postponed. It must be our objective to look after those who cannot look after themselves. I may say that I am at a loss to understand the political philosophy which does not accept something like the fair rents scheme. Of course let us help those who cannot afford to pay the rent for their house. But why subsidise those who can? What object is there in an indiscriminate subsidy on food? Of course let us help those who are badly off and who cannot afford the price of bread and milk. But what possible merit is there in subsidising those who can afford to pay? Let us concentrate on creating wealth in this country by encouraging industry, and not by impeding it. Is it sensible to put added taxes on industry which prevent investment and slow down growth? We must concentrate on the creation of wealth. Let us applaud profit, and not sneer at it. Let us seek to associate these who work in industry with the success of their companies, and let them benefit from that success. Let us see whether we can mobilise public opinion to support the voluntary system of wages and income. Above all, let us seek to unite the country in this common purpose. None of those

2157
things is impossible, but do not let us leave it until it is too late. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, we are grateful to the Opposition for making this debate possible. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the tone and temper with which he initiated it. I shall try to follow the line which he set. Much is made these days of the coalition concept, but the inescapable fact is that there are different approaches. An overwhelmingly important requirement, it seems to me, is that we should debate these different opinions as frankly, freely and as closely as possible, and that is what I think the noble Lord was saying. If one side loses the debate and the forthcoming Election, then I would accept that in the national interest in this critical period the other side should give every opportunity to the opposing side to prove its point in practice. The noble Lord has stated his own Party's point of view fairly and clearly, and I shall try to state mine.
My Lords, may I deal with this issue of uncertainty and lack of confidence which, the noble Lord was making out, was doing much more damage than anything else. Uncertainty and lack of confidence, like beauty, are qualities which lie in the eye of the beholder. The modern advertising profession is based on the proposition that the eye of the beholder can be influenced by skilled propaganda. If I spend two minutes on the current professionally planned propaganda campaign, devoted specifically to the creation of uncertainty, it is because if we are to identify the truth we must first cast aside the dross.
Take for example to personalise propaganda on to my right honourable friend Tony Benn. They sought to create an unpleasant image of the Millbank man. The truth is that I sit in the Millbank office and my right honourable friend in Victoria Street. But no advertising man could build up fear about the Victorian man and the truth was simply disregarded. Or take the case of the 4,000 firms. When asked for the amounts of public money paid to the 20 top companies my right honourable friend said that it was taking time to find this out because in turn those 20 companies owned 4,000 more. This
2158
became, quite deliberately, a plot to take over 4,000 firms. "Benn widens his grab net" was the headline of the Daily Express. And if we are talking about uncertainty, look at that full-page advertisement by the Aims of Industry, headed, blatantly, "How safe are your pensions?" Has there ever been such a crude attempt to create uncertainty since the Post Office Savings scandal of 1931?
Two things can be said about this current lack of confidence: first, that it is being deliberately fanned by some organisations for their own narrow interests; secondly, that the chronic trouble which makes us susceptible to this propaganda pre-dates the advent of the present Labour Government. My Lords, the confidence which we lack is a factor shown by others in the Western World and affects other aspects of our life—let us face it—than economics and trade. But take, for example, as an index of confidence, industrial investment. It was inadequate investment which Mr. Heath had in mind when, as Prime Minister, he said in his 1971 Guildhall speech that the situation, and I quote:
"… cries out for a major programme of investment in industrial expansion and modernisation."
I, for one, would applaud his statement but the fact is that investment did not rise; it fell following that appeal.
In 1971 investment per head in manufacturing industry was less than half that in France, Japan and the United States of America. In 1973, after all the appeals and the honest effort, we spent just under £2 billion gross on manufacturing investment in 1970 prices, or 12½ per cent. less than in that 1970 year of a Labour Government. Let me hasten to add, lest I be thought to be saying that all was well under that 1970 dispensation, that that investment figure was a bare 5 per cent. of the G.D.P. Last year, the recovery year, it was barely 4 per cent. How can we talk as if the Conservative Government free market economy has served our needs?
There is another feature of the figures which shows that all was not so well before March, 1974. Look at the tables which compare the return, in terms of extra production, in this country compared with others for a given volume of investment. Taking Japan as 100, the United Kingdom is 50, the United States

2159
of America is 60, France is 75, and Japan, as I said, 100. While investment at home has lagged behind, there is one other quite significant fact over which we should pause when considering the effectiveness of free market forces in re-equipping—effectively re-equipping, as the noble Lord has said—British industry. My Lords, so great was the confidence of investors in the earlier years that in the last ten years the value of direct investment abroad has more than trebled and at a time when so much was needed in industry at home.
That brings me to yet another point. Not only has there been inadequate investment, not only has that investment in manufacturing industry not yielded sufficient return in terms of productivity, but much investment has been in areas irrelevant to, or prejudicial to, an improvement in our real standard of life. Take, for example, this gem of information which I culled from the Investors Chronicle of June 14 this year:
"Estimated sales of land and buildings in 1973 soared to a staggering £12,000 million, only marginally less than the gross capital expenditure of the whole of British industry in the year. The total value of conveyancing in 1973 was about three times the 1968 level."
That is only one of the pieces of evidence which indicates that the free enterprise economy can be too free. It may be said that some of that figure of land and property sales were of houses to live in. That is true, some of them were, but again further study shows that investment in residential property in this country in recent years has been below that of other countries on the Continent, and the need here was certainly not less.
My Lords, I will not weary the House with many more figures, but there is more statistical evidence which indicates that the current argument of free enterprise versus public enterprise is not only time-consuming but irrelevant. What is wanted is more enterprise, more effective enterprise, right across the industrial spectrum. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult to say what is true, traditional Tory-type, free enterprise. The figures quoted by my right honourable friend about the £3,000 million plus of public money made available to private companies only indicates how mixed is the modern mixed economy.
2160
However, we need to understand more than that. We need to understand that it is the direction of investment as much as the volume which is important. It is not only how much production but what kind of production which will determine our standard of life. I have often argued in this House that we confuse ourselves by relating success to the growth of our G.N.P. Theoretically we could show a percentage figure of growth reflecting only the building of prestige office blocks to house people who build prestige office blocks. But if we are to enjoy a good life—using the term in its best sense—if we are to follow a democratically agreed pattern of priorities then we must have for the future a much more purposive pattern of investment.
This is the thinking behind the present Government's proposals, which will be implemented by the next Government, for planning agreements with the major industrial companies. There is already much exchange of information about forward plans as between industrial organisations and Government, and our proposal—which does not justify the kind of campaign which the Aims of Industry are mounting—is to develop and regularise these exchanges. Clearly, Government policy can affect, and be affected, by what the larger companies intend to do or would like to do. It is a sensible means of building up confidence for investment. The precise scope and character of this machinery must be a matter for consultation, and the employee as well as the employer organisations will be consulted.
The recent C.B.I. document was a useful addition to the material for discussion. Some weeks ago the C.B.I. were invited to discuss the outline proposals for the Government's forthcoming White Paper on Industrial Regeneration. The kind of dialogue which we envisage is one which is an essential prerequisite to any effective policy in this country. Beside this voluntary planning agreement, we need another instrument of planning. In the first full flush of Selsdon Man the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation was scrapped. We need a new body to take on where that old body left off.
The National Enterprise Board is what we have in mind. It will be a source of new funds for appropriate areas of industry where sustained investment is essential for our economic development. In some cases, with Parliamentary approval, it

2161
will acquire the entire ownership of existing companies. This has been done in the past by Conservative régimes, notably in the case of Rolls Royce. We propose that it should be done not in emergency situations only, but as part of an agreed development of our national economy. I was asked the other day by a noble Lord whether I would say by what criteria these public investments would be decided. I said, "The criterion of national interest", but in a debate one can spell it out a little more. I had in mind such factors as the creation of employment in assisted areas, increasing exports or saving undue imports, increasing efficiency, promoting development in the off-shore supplies industry and, one might add, offsetting the effect of privately dominated monopoly.
The noble Lord had some rather unkind things to say about what he called nationalisation; what I would refer to as public ownership. As he rightly said, or rightly implied, there would be no public transport system, there would be no steel organisation today, there would be none of the services upon which we depend unless public ownership had been prepared to step in. And although one can make the point about profit-making, let us not forget that it was the Administration of which the noble Lord was a member which quite deliberately held back prices in the nationalised industries in the national interest, and when we took over we found they were in fact £1,400 million behind the figure which they would have achieved had price rises been agreed by the previous Administration.
As the noble Lord has said, there was evidence at the time of the three day week that those engaged in industry and commerce can respond to a proper challenge if it is put to them, and certainly I agree with him that none of this restructuring and re-equipping of industry will serve its purpose unless what is called industrial relations are right. It is this factor which is so important alongside the other matters about which I have been speaking. The C.B.I. assert, reasonably enough, that the Government have no great reservoirs of managerial talent. I think that is a subject which at some time this House might well debate at greater length. But all I would say at this moment is that I believe there exists great new managerial talent in this country,
2162
two or even three layers down below the present top management. This is true in many of our sluggish industries. I believe that there are these younger men who, given the chance, can develop and will match the responsibilities. One thinks of wartime experience, and indeed there are examples, though not enough, in the current industrial scene.
But in the context of this debate it is wider industrial relations we must consider. The Pay Board, which struggled manfully with a remit riddled with anomalies and crippled with inflexibility, has been scrapped. The wretched Industrial Relations Court, which acted out its short life between near tragedy on the one hand and sheer farce on the other, though with much useful work in between, is no more. We now have or are about to have, the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and we also have the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, to whose chairman, my noble friend Lord Diamond, I am sure the whole House will extend good wishes. We also have the guidelines issued by the T.U.C.
The first two new organisations need time to achieve authority and to exert influence. The guidelines are a valuable sign of the readiness of the T.U.C. to fulfil its part in the social contract. But we have to recognise that those guidelines coincide with the lifting of Stage 3 at a time when anomalies need to be removed and when the threshold payments are multiplied by quite abnormal price increases. Only the foolish or the irresponsible would deny that the testing time lies immediately ahead.
But before one criticises the risk we now face let us recall the dangers from which we have emerged. The last Government, of which the noble Lord was a Member, tried a combination of rigid restrictions on pay with the reckless printing of paper money. It was a combination which could not and did not work. It is precisely the aftermath of that combination with which we now must cope. The Industrial Relations Act did not usher in an era of industrial peace. In 1972 we lost nearly 24 million days in disputes, and even after the lull of exhaustion in 1973 we were back with 8¾ million for the first half of this year. It is surely worth while trying a new

2163
approach. The whole concept of industrial democracy is based on the idea that constructive co-operation will gradually displace confrontation and a get-what-you-can attitude on both sides of industry. If we encourage what is best in modern industry; if we move towards a real industrial democracy; if we use the conciliation and arbitration services when troubles arise; if we have a Royal Commission to help identify and facilitate the elimination of the sharper inequities of income and wealth; if we have the T.U.C. publicly advocating proper restraints, then, longer-term, the outlook is bright. It is the short-term where the shadows lie.
The deeper part of our problem reflects credit rather than dishonour upon us as a nation. The ending of colonialism was a policy for which many of us fought. It was then condemned as a means of ensuring cheap raw materials. The proof of that is now before us. From 1970 to 1974 the price of our exports went up by 46 per cent., but the price of imports went up by 88 per cent. The price of crude oil, which was £8 per ton f.o.b. in the third quarter of 1973, rose to £32 per ton f.o.b. in the second quarter of 1974. It would be of nostalgic interest to calculate how much of these commodities came from countries where once the British flag flew.
Clearly, if other countries than ours are to have a greater share of what is produced, then—and I would agree with the noble Lord opposite in what he said on this—either total production is increased or our share is lessened. Though the terms of trade may turn a little in our favour, we must henceforward expect to export a larger volume of goods and services for a given quantity of raw materials. We cannot escape this fact by paying ourselves more paper money. Pay claims must have regard to these underlying realities. I saw one calculation last week, that at present rates of inflation a young man of 25, earning £40 a week and seeking an increase in real terms of 2½ per cent. a year, would by the time he was 65 require to earn a salary of £250,000 a year. It is enough to state that to realise how ridiculous would be the situation if we allowed it to go on as it is at the present time.
2164
Having said that, let me go on to say that there are some rays of hope. We have broken the speculative spiral in land and property. The terms of trade show signs of turning somewhat in our favour. The non-oil visible deficit declined to £449 million in the second quarter of 1974 from its high of £719 million in the fourth quarter of 1973. The surplus on invisible account rose from £800 million to £1,089 million in two years. So far this year the M3 money supply has risen by only 2·3 per cent. against the shameful figure of a 25 per cent. rise in the last financial year. All this, and when I see the faces of modern school children going to school I think that things cannot be all that bad.
As I said earlier, the testing time will be immediately ahead. To win through, I agree with the noble Lord that we shall need the utmost restraint not only in wage claims, but in the general attitude that we have towards each other. It will not be good enough to have the sort of cheap campaign which the Aims of Industry is now mounting. We need to conduct our arguments with each other in a more honest and constructive fashion. I hope in that sense that this House and the debate which follows will give a lead to the country.
3.41 p.m.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, before I begin my speech this afternoon, I should like to extend my personal best wishes to the noble Lords, Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Lee of Newton, who are making their maiden speeches to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, was for a number of years my political neighbour in the West Midlands. He and I faced one another for a period on education policy in the House of Commons, and he will not need me to tell him of the pleasure it gives me to be present to hear his maiden speech this afternoon.
A case for the Chancellor's mini-Budget can certainly be made. His measures will do something to halt the rise in retail prices, and the addition of £900 million to consumers' purchasing power will certainly have an effect on demand at a time when the aggregate of demand on our resources is likely to be running at 5 per cent. below productive capacity. Yet I cannot help agreeing with the view, cogently argued by Mr.

2165
Maudling in another place, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well have fallen between two stools. He has done too little for industrial investment—about which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, so rightly spoke—on which both the level of employment and our balance of payments must ultimately depend. Despite the concession on dividend control, which is very welcome in itself, the fact is that we still have price control at a time when wage controls have been abandoned. This fact, together with the measures in the April Budget, must have a very serious effect on the cash flow of industry.
At the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures, by stimulating consumer demand, must have a deleterious effect on the balance of payments. I should like to ask the Government's spokesman who is to reply what I comsidered a very pertinent question which Mr. Maudling put in another place; namely, what is the expected effect of the mini-Budget on the import bill? It seems to me not altogether easy to defend the 2 per cent. reduction in V.A.T. and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, this continuing very high level of indiscriminate food subsidies, whilst still collecting advanced corporation tax in this year of maximum squeeze on industry. I must say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be, feels later on in the year that he must do something more in view of rising unemployment, I hope that he will look first at the level of taxation on industry rather than give any further handouts to the consumer.
Secondly, looking ahead—and I think that on this point I take a slightly more sombre view than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did in his speech—I suspect that post-tax living standards for the British community as a whole cannot be maintained in real terms let alone increased during the years ahead. The sooner we face that fact the better. I agree on this point with the view of Mr. Marquand, who said in another place that the world of the 1950s and 1960s of apparently unlimited growth in personal consumption, sustained year by year, is now past. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that those in the 1950s who most welcomed growth at that time would now have some sympathy with this view.
2166
We could only hope to increase or, I believe, even maintain levels of personal consumption provided we were prepared for one of two things: either not to bother about the level of investment—and that, as I have said, would be self-defeating—or, secondly, if we were prepared for still more severe cuts in public expenditure. On that point, I must say that I would not personally wish to see more cuts in public expenditure than we are already making. In yesterday's debate on health, I heard views being expressed on all sides in this House about the need to spend more on the National Health Service, and I think there would be fairly general agreement in this House that local educational authorities are pretty severely pruned in their budgets at the present time. Indeed, Sir William Alexander has said that he has never known a time when the education budget is more under strain than at present.
Therefore, if we are agreed that one cannot indulge in the self-defeating policy of forgetting about investment, and if we do not wish to have a further curtailment of public expenditure, then in my view this must have certain consequences for the future of personal consumption. And I have no doubt that noble Lords on this side of the House would agree that this, in its turn, raises the question of the distribution of wealth and of rewards. Here I agree there must be fairness. I take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should not penalise success, or responsibility, too much. We should none the less try to pursue a policy of fairness, although I would suggest this must include fairness over a lifetime. For myself, I was always in favour of a capital gains tax. I am in favour of a gifts tax, but I am sure that it was wrong for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to attempt to increase taxation on retired persons with incomes over £1,500 a year. I think that that was a harsh measure, and I am glad it was defeated.
Looking forward again, I must say that I am one of those who remain convinced that Governments cannot deal with cost inflation solely by budgetary and monetary policy, or by restricting the money supply. I share the view that the complete abandonment of any statutory powers over incomes has been a great mistake. I am aware that this is not a popular view

2167
in another place nowadays, and therefore I want to defend what I have just said. I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, may wish to express views later on in this debate which may not be exactly the same as those that I am now going to put.
No one disputes that monetary policy is important, and I would identify two respects in which this is especially true. The sudden expansion of the money supply can have an effect not just on the wherewithal of funds but also on business expectations. I would personally very much endorse the view put by an able monetarist, Mr. John Biffen, in another place, that Governments need to be particularly careful about the supply of money just after there has been a very favourable turn around in the balance of payments. Again, the money supply is important when spenders depend heavily on finance from external sources, and this especially applies to property deals. I believe that the previous Government would probably now admit that they were wrong to budget for such a very large borrowing requirement, and that this helped to stoke up the property boom. In those two ways—the effect on land and property deals, and the effect sudden changes in expectations, especially when the balance of payments has turned more favourable—I would not for a moment doubt the great importance of monetary policy and the money supply.
However, I cannot agree that at any tolerable level of unemployment we could conquer cost inflation by operating on the supply of money alone. It is here that I find myself differing from certain economists. I read the views of distinguished men like Professor Alan Walters, who argued that a period of zero growth and unemployment rising to 1·2 million would enable us permanently to defeat inflation without any incomes policy, and then to resume growth without rising prices, it seems to me that they leave out one or two quite obvious factors. Even if we could maintain unemployment politically for a period at the precise figure of 1·2 million, or something like it, does any noble Lord really doubt that there would be a number of bankruptcies, and a great deal of pressure on the Government to bail out particular firms? I am quite clear that in a mixed economy money would in fact be coming into the
2168
system by other means, quite apart from the personal suffering that would have resulted. When I come across the view that you can conquer cost inflation simply by a monetary and budgetary squeeze, I can never help being reminded of a remark by a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, Professor Broad, who said of the views of some of his colleagues, that only very clever people could have devised theories so repugnant to good sense.
If we want to defeat cost inflation, then it seems to me that we must use all the means to hand: budgetary policy, and monetary policy, and there must be, surely, reserve statutory powers over in-incomes as well; though I would suggest we should try to learn about the technique of incomes policy all the time and no doubt there is the need for the powers to be used a little more flexibly than those operated by the previous Government. Frankly, I think that the Heath Government in their last weeks allowed themselves to get too boxed in, if I may use that expression. But they were surely right in principle to face this issue of statutory powers and to hang on. I be-believe that sooner or later any Government will have to recognise the important element of truth in Mr. Maudling's view when he said recently of incomes policy:
"It is the best policy we have got."
Lastly, as I know many noble Lords wish to speak, I want only to make one point. We are living, as we know, in a time of acute economic crisis for Great Britain. I think we have also a crisis of national identity, though unlike my former distinguished colleague for Wolverhampton, I would personally always prefer to express this identity in terms of culture rather than of race or territory. But at the moment we have a crisis of national identity when more and more familiar landmarks are disappearing. At times we may feel that these landmarks are getting rooted up somewhat unnecessarily. If noble Lords will forgive what may seem an irrelevant point, I find myself wondering what useful purpose is really served by the superior of a religious community on taking up his office taking the trouble to tell us that he does not expect the Church to last more than another 50 years. I can see no great point in causing more alarm to any section of the community than is necessary. Equally, I am sure that in this kind of situation

2169
certain of our institutions do take on a very special importance. This is all the more true in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly called the mobilisation of moderate opinion. And of all institutions that matter at present I would venture to suggest none matters more than the institution of Parliament itself.
I was reading recently what I think is one of the most outstanding biographies to have appeared since the war, the three-volume biography of a very distinguished former Member of this House, the first Lord Hankey, by Captain Stephen Roskill. I was struck by Captain Roskill's remark about the disastrous story of the peace ballot in the 1930s. He makes this remark:
"This was Government by referendum instead of by Parliamentary processes developed and adapted over a long period."
How apposite those words seem to-day! We are in a crisis position, though as the noble Lord said, I believe, not a hopeless position.
Only this morning in The Times another Professor, Professor Harrison of Sheffield, has reminded us that industrial action has not only played a big part in overthrowing a Government but has also overthrown a court. Whatever our views on the Industrial Relations Act—and I do not think the whole Act was as bad as it has sometimes been painted—the spectacle of a court being overthrown frankly gives one serious cause for reflection. Other sections of opinion are looking for a national leader, apparently right outside the normal processes of Parliamentary democracy. As someone who can attend this House only seldom I would say, for Heaven's sake, let us in Parliament keep our heads. Let us play our part in facing the situation honestly; in shunning extreme courses, as both opening speakers have notably done in this debate this afternoon; in helping to keep one another informed, and in doing all we can to strengthen those forces in our society which stand both for justice and for stability.
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am indeed fortunate in speaking so early in the debate after three such eminent speakers as the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, the noble Lord, Lord
2170
Beswick, and my noble friend Lord Carrington, to whom we are particularly indebted for having given us a chance to debate this most important topic at this time. I am not going to follow them down their economic by-ways. I will start out on a new line with a small parable. It concerns a man returning home late one night who saw under a lamp-post on his hands and knees another man who was clearly inebriated. After a while he approached him and said, "What are you doing?" To which the man on the ground relied, "I am looking for my wallet." The first man said, "Where did you last see it?" "Oh," he said, "I think I dropped it down that dark lane over there." "What are you doing looking here?" "It is so much easier", he said, "to look where there sis some light."
I am not noted for my pessimism and certainly I do not aspire to any reputation as a prophet of gloom, but I strongly believe that those who pretend today, be they industrialists, economists, traders, financiers, unionists or politicians, that we face anything less than an economic turning point, are doing a considerable disservice to the country.
Let us look cooly at the portents and start with the good news. First, we have the halt in commodity price rises. Consequently, the terms of trade, for the time being at any rate, have ceased to move against us. These changes take some months to work through the system and for the time being they are still substantially offset by the emerging effects of oil price increases, but so far this is encouraging. It is encouraging that exports in the second quarter continue to rise, and rose, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, remarked, rather faster than non-oil imports. But this situation, for Britain at least, could be short-lived. Last year we exported 23 per cent. of our gross domestic product. Only Germany and Canada came close. Japan, at 12 per cent. is about half as export dependent as we are, and the United States, at 6 per cent., only a quarter so. Meanwhile, in the United States the gross national product continues to fall and domestic wage spirals in industrialised countries are taking the place of oil and commodity price spirals.
Until recently the major economies of the world were all expanding together. If

2171
they now simultaneously contract, we face the certainty of a slow-down in world trade, encouraged as it will be by the massive transfers of spending power from current accounts in O.E.C.D. countries to capital accounts in the O.P.E.C. countries, and we face more than a possibility of a world slump.
Last week the Economist carried the rather disturbing suggestion that,
"like a breed of super rats, which have become immune to poison, the world's economies may now have become immune to Keynesian demand management on a national scale. Economies have become too inter-dependant for any but the Governments of the larger countries to be able to control their own destiny, while politically countries remain too independent to be willing to co-operate in controlling the re-emcrging international trade cycle."
International trade as a percentage of total production has been increasing, and we, with the greatest dependence of any major economy on such trade, are consequently the most vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Carrington pointed to the repetition of crisis and exhortation. Here we have the problem of belief.
My Lords, I should declare an interest. Last month I assumed the presidency of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. There is a constant two-way dialogue with over 50,000 of our members throughout the country, and thus I am on the receiving end of a stream of comment on how these members see the industrial scene and how the present climate affects their decisions—decisions which collectively are of colossal importance to the country. Now I neither envy the Chancellor his job nor do I propose to advise him on how to discharge it. But the plea which constantly reaches me is the plea for consistency as a basis for the return of confidence. These people, generally responsible for the running of businesses both large and small, believe in Britain's capacity, but they are both confused and deeply concerned as to what to do for the best. Let me quote just two sentences from the latest issue of Commerce International, an admirable monthly which I commend to all who do not know it. We read:
"Even the Government seems to be in two minds, with Messrs. Healey and Lever offering balm to all and sundry while Mr. Callaghan seeks to renegotiate membership of the E.E.C. on the basis of future penury. Add to all this the utterances of Herman Kahn that Britain is heading for a future existence
2172
of a cheap tourist island for the Italians and Spaniards and there is small wonder that confusion reigns ".
My Lords, let me expand on this vital question of confidence—and I believe it is not, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, something that is just in the eye of the beholder. It concerns things that people can see around them. It concerns worsening corporate liquidity; it concerns the inability to raise money in the securities market. Consequently it concerns investment plans. A major effect of inflation is to put pressure on company liquidity. It is readily accepted that the increase in world prices of raw materials, including oil, was not the fault of our Government or of anyone else's Government, nor was the increase in world food prices which has provided the basis for much of the case for increased wages. Nevertheless, as now seen by commerce and industry Government has added unnecessarily to their problems. In particular, advance corporation tax has been seen as a particularly unhelpful measure which permanently affects their liquidity.
Then there is the problem of higher stock values costing more to finance at higher rates of interest to carry just the same levels of stock, while there is currently no way in which the capital base of most companies can be increased to support the extra borrowing which this would entail. The Government, with their constant stream of comment and criticism on the conduct of the securities market and on the City generally, and because of their threatening, if occasionally divided noises about massive reorganisation of the private sector of industry, and by being thought to regard profits as socially undesirable, are widely held to have contributed to the current debilitation of the equity market. Then the massive increase in rates has added to the general burden. We might note that although the Environment Secretary has seen a warning so far as the domestic ratepayer is concerned, there has been no apparent understanding in respect of the burden of rates on businesses, especially small businesses where they can hit very hard indeed.
Commerce and industry, forced more than ever to look carefully at liquidity matters, tends to focus attention on immediate cash flow and thus to become preoccupied with short-term expediency to

2173
the detriment of the medium and the long-range planning which is the real path to industrial effort by the country. There is a need now to restore a sense of balance and a sense of perspective. The slow down on the construction front is producing a serious build up of problems in the secondary industries which supply the main industry. The overall effect of the events of the last nine months or so has been to strike a series of blows, collectively damaging to the confidence of commerce and industry and seriously to undermine that confidence. There is the confidence of commerce and industry in its own future, one obvious measure of which is its readiness to invest; there is also the confidence of our customers overseas, actual and potential, in the ability of this country to deliver the goods.
In many ways, in the important engineering sector, the trading outlook at home and especially overseas is encouraging and, although in some instances the economies of our customer-countries are faltering a little, the evidence is there that the order books are still firm. Clearly, in these circumstances the role of Government is to do all within their power to assist commerce and industry to take fullest advantage of the situation. Apart from taking action that is sensible in itself, the Government must avoid continuing uncertainty. Industrialists, generally, can trim their sails considerably to deal even with the most difficult of circumstances but what they cannot do is to deal effectively with uncertainty.
What, then, can be done about this situation? I am making no Party point—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will appreciate this—when I point out that it is only the Government who can dispel these clouds of uncertainty. I should like to make this offer to him and to his colleagues. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce movement generally is ready and is anxious to enter into and to expand any dialogue with the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry or with anyone else, bilaterally or multilaterally, to help to dispel these doubts and to unleash the best endeavours of our commerce and our industry. But we cannot expect full success in this unless the Government will define the targets, will make clear that the
2174
future of our economy depends on successful and profitable enterprises in the private sector, which we strive for in the public sector, and, not least, quell the damaging uncertainly engendered by vague, threatening, and sometimes contradictory statements made by those responsible for policy.
My Lords, I have attempted no penetrating economic analysis but I should like to consider briefly what motivates ordinary men and women. First and foremost there is the fear of inflation and where it may lead, socially as well as economically. It is not so much greed as the fear of deprivation; it is not so much resistance to change, but fear of violent change. We have become sadly familiar with industrial unrest in factories and in mines, but it endangers a deep sense of unease to learn of the new spirit of militancy among such groups as nurses, teachers and civil servants—and this at a time when the international prize must go to the country with the most disciplined workforce.
The sense of frustration and injustice which we have long recognised among the lowest paid is not now confined there, and there are, I believe, two very serious long-term implications. The first implication stems from a narrowing of monetary differentials and a lack of incentives to undergo training and to acquire skills, whether these be technical skills achieved through professional training or the skills of the artisan acquired through apprenticeship. The sacrifices which are required, of leisure and of earning power, during the learning period are not seen to be rewarded in later life. Those who persevere and qualify are often then required to bear extra responsibilities without corresponding social or financial recognition.
The second point of concern revolves around the motivation of the young and striving managers who hitherto have been prepared to work very hard in expectation of real social improvement for their families. It will be a sad day if they start to opt out. These people are feeling in no small measure bewildered and increasingly resentful. They have seen their gross wages not keeping pace with the cost of living; they have felt the effects of fiscal drag; they have borne increased taxation; and they are deeply concerned about the price and availability

2175
of mortgages for their houses. They are hard hit by rising domestic rates. There is the unspecific threat of a wealth tax and there is this new attitude, which has been referred to, of criticism of what is successful and profitable.
These two tendencies, I believe, we must be deeply concerned about. As I have said, the prize must go to the countries with the most productive and disciplined workforces and we cannot afford to fail to optimise our national potential. I think it is worth asking ourselves these questions: how often recently have we met young people who will not contemplate a career in trade or industry because that carries a tinge of something not quite nice, and how often have we heard it asked recently: what is the point of saving with our system of taxation; why not spend it while we can? What a burden for the future we shall be storing up if we allow this attitude to persist!
My Lords, I started with a parable. I shall end with a true story. A friend of mine said to me yesterday, "I am sick and tired of hearing the politicians thundering about making this a country fit for our children to live in. We have the best country in the world: only the politicians can spoil it for our children". I can think of no better final words to leave with the Front Benches.
4.13 p.m.
LORD GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, for the kind words he said. If I may say so, I much admired the way he conducted himself in another place, where we often crossed swords, and I very much admired his command of argument in his speech to-day.
My Lords, I want to confine my remarks to the problem of inflation—heaven knows, it is a big enough problem. I concur with those who say that the present rate of inflation, if long maintained, will simultaneously undermine confidence in our money and in our democratic institutions. We must never under-rate this great and desperate challenge. On the other hand, it seems to me that we must preserve a degree of perspective. There are different forms and
2176
different causes of inflation. There is a built-in inflationary factor in our modern economy which was absent in the old days of boom and depression. We have mastered the art of full employment, which is exactly the same thing as living on top of a boom, and living on top of a boom is also the same thing as inflation. Therefore, as long as we have full employment, which we must maintain, we must have a certain inescapable degree of inflation. This basic irreducible rate of inflation is the price of full employment.
If we had only this degree of inflation to cope with, it would be tolerable. It is what one might call the extra inflation over and above this basic inflation which is so dangerous. Various factors produce this extra inflation and the best experts are not agreed about them. But one factor which is sometimes overlooked, because it is outside the scope and range of economic analysis, is the prevailing mood of the people at any one time, what they fear and what they think desirable. I think that one reason for the German economic miracle was that the German workers feared inflation more than anything else. I think our workers still fear unemployment and loss of purchasing power most. As we, too, face this mounting rate of inflation, our people may come to have a like fear about inflation, and a factor which now works in favour of inflation will then begin to tend to work against it.
My Lords, it is of course possible—indeed, easy—to be too complacent about the problems facing us, but it is also possible to be too alarmist. If we are too alarmist, this could disable us from taking effective action. If we raise our eyes from our present discontents to the not too distant future, we can glimpse, as my noble friend was saying, somewhat better things. The terms of trade, it seems to me, will certainly at some time or other move in our favour. That will be settled by the play of supply and demand. If commodity prices reach abnormally high levels, producers produce more to meet them and gradually begin to overproduce, and a very small percentage change in these things can make all the difference between shortage and glut. Fanners, above all, know that, as did Shakespeare when he talked of the farmer who hanged himself in expectation of plenty.

2177
There are some signs—and we all agree about this—that commodity prices are beginning to come down and we can look forward to our own oil production which will help our balance of payments and our terms of trade. But we cannot simply wait until things begin to get better of themselves—as they will, five or six years from now—because five or six years more of the present rate of inflation will be absolutely disastrous. Equally, we cannot rely on exhortation. We have, therefore, a need for policies and actions which will tide us over the next few years before matters begin to go our way. What we need, I think, are rough and ready, unorthodox, temporary measures to moderate at almost all costs the present desperate rate of inflation.
It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right to take a number of such unorthodox and temporary steps. I am thinking of the steps to moderate the rise in rates, which were particularly important. I think also that food subsidies are right and I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I do not see how one could administer food subsidies on a means test basis as he was suggesting. It seems to me so incomparably difficult and expensive that it would not be worth doing, and I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made more money available for food subsidies.
However, my Lords, there is one other major step of this kind which I think would greatly help us to get over the hazardous few years ahead; that is, indexing, as it is called—the adjustment of sources of income to rises in the cost of living. It is not a wholly new idea. It already applies to wages in terms of threshold agreements; it applies to retirement pensions, and also to foreign holders of sterling. It seems to me that it should be extended to all, or practically all, payments. This would, more than anything else, restore confidence in money and would abate the race by all who can manage it to keep their income in step with rising prices. It would redress the balance between the economically strong and the economically weak and—something to which I attach very great importance—it would restore and foster individual thrift, and give an extra incentive to reduce inflation, because as we get back to moderate inflation from this immense
2178
inflation the cost of indexing would proportionately fall away. It seems to me that all these policies and similar ones together would help very much to reduce the impulse behind wage increases.
For the reasons I have given, I do not think we could ever be rid of inflation altogether unless we adopted the unthinkable course of abandoning full employment. But if we take vigorous, resourceful, unorthodox steps in temporarily checking inflation for the few years ahead, we can look forward in the not too distant future to a moderate and tolerable rate of inflation, and there would be some benefits from that. Broadly speaking, it is good for the economy if lenders of money lose at a reasonable rate to the active borrowers of money rather than the other way up. And indeed, my Lords, some moderate degree of inflation is—and we must never forget it—infinitely belter than any degree of deflation.
4.21 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, one of the privileges and pleasures which we treasure in this House is that of finding oneself in a position to express felicitations to a new arrival the first time that he happens to address this assembly. I am sure all will agree that to-day we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, an example of what a speech of moderation and charm, combined with good advice, should give to this House. He comes to this House from a long period of rough and tumble in another place where he never forfeited his good humour or his popularity; a long period in that House which embraced a great many offices, and we must not forget that among the varied offices which he held was that of Foreign Secretary. His early life imbued him with the inclination to take a wide and human view of the world's affairs and that is what established the qualities which he brings to us, associated with the dignity of a Companion of Honour. I am sure, after what we have heard from him to-day, that we can look forward to many speeches which will ensure contributions of value to this House.
My Lords, what I was about to say as my first few remarks has been somewhat changed by the candour and logic of the speech that my noble friend Lord Carrington has made this afternoon. So fluent, forceful, convincing, and what a

2179
measure of good advice he gave to the Government Benches. I hope that they will profit from much of the logic which was embraced in his remarks. A point can appropriately be raised in connection with the Finance Bill that we have just passed to-day—so to speak on the nod! What I am about to say now should more properly have been said before on the Motion to pass that Bill. Twenty years or more ago, it was habitual to have a good debate in this House on the Finance Bill and I am not sure it is good that that Bill should be passed, as we have done in the last few years, without the earlier habit. In this House we have a remarkable source of talent on financial matters, and it has been customary that the country should know that a Finance Bill will attract expressions on it and debate in this House. But to-day that debate has been admirably substituted by the opportunity for discussion which my noble friend Lord Carrington has given us.
I had intended to raise three points, all of which I have urged before. The first, curiously enough, is one on which I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker: it is the question of an index related bond; that is an issue with Government support related either to the commodity price index or to the index of the cost of living. It needs no further recommendation from myself, because it has been amply explained by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. We need it and it should be offered, particularly at a time when savings are disquietingly low. The second point is I doubt as to the wisdom of the large scale on which overseas borrowing has been indulged in by the nationalised industries or other corporationsl, with the encouragement of the Government. It masks the true scale of foreign borrowing and, at the high rates of interest at which it is borrowed, it increases the cost of servicing and, therefore, the strain on the balance of payments in the future.
The third point is the advances which come from the threshold pay increases. The definition of the word "threshold" in the dictionary is not as is intended in political terms. But never mind; it has come into our vocabulary. Workers as a whole throughout the country believe that these advances are paid for by the Government, but they are paid for by
2180
industry, and they put much on to the cost of everything that industry produces. That is a point which cannot be sufficiently widely explained. I have before expressed my misgivings about the Barber policy of deficit financing, reduction of taxation, increase of Government spending, increase of Government borrowing, depression of sterling increases that which would make imports dearer and add to the cost of living. Unquestionably, the result of that policy was a large adverse balance of payments. Picture a firm that suddenly finds itself heavily extended at a moment when some unforeseen event strikes it.
That is the position which this country was in last November. The Arab blow came. At that moment there was need for Government action of such intensity as would forcefully bring the nation back on to its haunches, and make the whole country realise that real sacrifices were necessary to meet that situation. It was not taken to a sufficient extent even though they did have a considerable effect. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very properly took credit for the fact that the increase in the money supply rate had been substantially reduced. But really what happened during the period for which he is taking credit was the result of actions taken—insufficient though they were—by the Conservative Government of that time. It would seem that the present Government are still making the same mistake as that which was made by the Conservative Government, of not making the country realise and prepare for the sacrifice that is necessary, as has been also urged by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker.
The increasing Government expenditure, food subsidies, subsidies to industry and encouragement of deficits by nationalised industries all seems to show that action taken has been insufficient and faulty. The astonishing thing is, looking back over the last forty or fifty years, that the depression which surely must develop in the light of world-wide circumstances may not be prolonged. Some depression there will be, but it is extraordinary that such has not now developed more swiftly and not been deeper already. But surely, as my noble friend Lord Carrington has urged, nationalisation is not the cure, for that

2181
would only add to the uncertainty and insecurity. Why is there not more investment? How can a firm invest if it cannot raise money on the capital market? If the profit motive, which Lord Carrington so properly and stoutly supported, is not permitted, how can firms get the money with which to increase dividends and achieve investment and offer the employment which is wanted? Why should "profit" be a dirty word? After all, 50 per cent. and more of profits go to the Government anyhow.
Bluntly, the country is trying to live above its means. It must recognise that there is need for sacrifice. Has there ever been a chance over the last fifty years of business prosperity with Government credit on anything approaching the present 15 per cent. basis? What is the correction that is needed? The answer is to reduce Government expenditure until the terms of trade, which Lord Beswick so rightly said have moved against us, are corrected; and whatever concessions are then given to the country should only be in ratio to the appropriate increase of productivity.
4.34 p.m.
LORD LEE OF NEWTON: My Lords, in company with a number of noble Lords that I see present, at one period I spent some five years debating in this Chamber, which, to me at any rate, makes my present state of maidenhood seem a trifle shop worn. In those days we seemed almost every week to be discussing economic affairs in the wake of the Great War, and one of the remarkable differences I find now is in the atmosphere. The atmosphere which prevailed throughout the nation in those days was such that, in the backwash of the war, it was easier to get an interest; but to-day it seems to me—and I agree with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this—that there exists nothing like the interest necessary if we are to surmount our problems. I should have thought that no matter what means Governments may use, no matter what theories economists may suggest, unless we can get the undivided help of the whole nation and all our industries we will never achieve the satisfactory levels which all of us, I know, are aiming to bring about.
Therefore, it seems to me essential that there should be such interest as was generated in the post-war period, when,
2182
your Lordships will remember, in industry we had production committees, not only at factory level, but at regional and national level, all helping to generate interest throughout the nation. I think we can learn from that and I should like to see Governments, along with the employers and the trade unions, trying again to recreate the kind of atmosphere we then had.
It also seems to me that the nation itself must make a decision now as to whether it really desires to remain a great industrial Power and is prepared to make the sacrifice that that entails, including the discarding of many sacred cows on all sides of the industry; or whether we will be content to become a nation of moaners demanding the living standards which only a prosperous nation can provide while doing all the things which presuppose a third-rate industrial Power and the living standards, which that entails. I believe that we are in that kind of situation now.
With respect to high inflation and low growth rates, again it appears to me that we are taking an almost fatalistic approach to these problems, though for my part I have yet to hear any economic reasons advanced as to why we should be doing so much worse than our principal competitors. I do not know of any reasons which are endemic to our economy; I have never heard of any. I think it is wrong, therefore, that we should tend to take this fatalistic attitude towards both because, once we do that, it seems to me we then begin to protect ourselves from the inevitable rise in the rate of inflation that we all suppose will happen next year and so on. By the very way in which we seek to protect ourselves from it we cause it. I therefore think it is important that this rather fatalistic attitude, as I have described it. should be dispensed with.
Another of the things which it does, I think, especially so far as low growth rates are concerned, is to cause more and more debate, discussion, maybe industrial strife in our demands for the reallocation of existing wealth. I am all in favour of the latter, for I believe that as yet far too much wealth is in the hands of far too few people; but nevertheless, once we get into the mood of merely arguing about the redistribution of existing wealth, we then forget that at

2183
the end of the day the methods by which we will increase our own living standards as a whole are by increasing supply as a whole.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle—who seems to be going Galbraithian on this issue—but I cannot believe that, given the demands and desires for higher living standards in this nation, we have yet reached the point at which we can agree to discard the policies of growth. It may well be all right for some small section of the community. When we think of the background of the desire for higher living standards, the desire for higher spending on education, on health and all those matters which mean so much to us, I cannot find any other way by which we can achieve it, no matter how existing wealth is distributed, unless we can ensure higher standards of growth than we have been getting in the past few years.
On investment, mention has been made of the activities of Aims of Industry and of the C.B.I. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was telling us of the uncertainties which nationalisation brings into the minds of investors. With respect, I think that they are causing far more uncertainties than anything we say on this subject on this side of the House. It probably explains—because the noble Lord was a member of the Cabinet—the positively derisory levels of investment during 1970–73 when one thinks of the way in which the then Government seized upon the monetary problems of Rolls-Royce to drag it into the public sector; that could well be one of the reasons, according to the arguments of Aims of Industry, as to why investment in those years was so bad.
As a matter of fact, I have read part of the C.B.I.'s latest document. They are far too complacent; I cannot recollect any period since the War when investment has been at a commensurate level with the requirements of this nation. I put it to noble Lords in another way: since the War there has been the scientific break-through in industrial productive methods. It has meant that levels of investment of pre-war days are now thoroughly and completely inadequate. I do not believe that even the British machine tool industry has adapted itself to the production of the more modern
2184
types of machine tools which we now require—although in fairness to them they are able to argue that they produce the things which their customers asked for, and this comes back to our own attitude towards investment.
All my working life I have worked in the engineering industry. I was taught to bow down to the machine tool; the more antiquated and ancient it became, the greater was our humility in the presence of the machine tool. We used to pack the slides of the machine with saw blades and emery paper. We were expected to compete with engineering industries in Germany, the United States and so on. Our attitude to investment is very bad indeed. I commend the attitude of many of the Americans to this. They make the point, when producing machine tools, that you should increase machine speeds and feeds so that there will be precious little left of the machine in 5 or 6 years' time. By this method they set up their productive processes in a way which many of the employers in this country have not even begun to consider.
I talked about the need to bring others into the economic discussion. I should like to congratulate Sir Derek Ezra and the Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, who have been mentioned this afternoon, for the way in which they are now getting round the conference table and discussing improvements in productivity and overall production in the coal industry. I commend their activities to all the other major industries in Britain. I believe that that is a positive, concrete way in which we can make progress on the industrial front. I understand that in the policy document that the C.B.I. have just published, Industry and Government, in addition to opposing any further nationalisation, they say that they—and I quote:
"… will go on pressing for greater freedom from Government interference for the existing nationalised section ".
I have a question to put to the Government about this matter. I happened to be one of the Ministers who agreed at the time to the nationalised industries joining the C.B.I. on condition that they did not take any part in the political decisions which that organisation made. According to my information and that which I

2185
read in the Press, the nationalised industries were present at the monthly Council meeting of the C.B.I. which decided by an overwhelming majority to accept the kind of activity I have just read out. May I ask the Government to make certain that the nationalised industries are not going to be used by the C.B.I. in the kind of activities which they are now engaging in, which are positively political and positively directed at one Party in the State? If I may return to what I was saying about investment, it is no good for the C.B.I. to be complacent or Aims of Industry to tell fairy stories about it. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and has been ever since the War.
There is only one other issue I wish to raise with you, my Lords, and that concerns the social contract and the return to free collective bargaining. I hope devoutly that both succeed. Long before I entered the Commons in 1945, I was an advocate of a more progressive incomes policy. I will not weary your Lordships this afternoon with that, but I mention it in passing. I have advocated that policy with some knowledge of collective bargaining which I had to indulge in for many years. The basis of collective bargaining is that in the final analysis those who possess industrial power will use it, or the threat of it, while those with no or little industrial power become low paid workers. We then cry upon each others' shoulders at the plight of the low paid worker while we perpetuate the system which produces them.
You will gather that I am not altogether an advocate of free collective bargaining. The plight of the low-paid workers has become so bad in recent years that Governments have had to introduce Family Incomes Supplements in order to maintain at a passable level of existence the families of people who are in full employment, and that I would have thought is a severe indictment of it. I believe that the T.U.C.'s statements are exemplary, and I hope that all their constituent trade unions will follow the guidelines laid down by the T.U.C. itself. On all sides we agree that the economic state of the nation is such that one can hardly expect improvements in living standards for some time. But if it is to be the case that industrial power is to be used by those who have it in order to
2186
defy the economic laws and increase living standards, it follows that low-paid workers who are already in a desperate plight will become even worse off.
Yesterday I listened in your Lordships' House to a discussion about the Health Service; I heard some noble Lords expressing wonder that there had been certain types of action which had never been heard of before. The answer is that they have been driven to it. There was no alternative for them. In a highly civilised nation we permit it to happen. We almost connive at its happening. It is because I deplore that kind of action having to be taken that I am anxious that in the immediate future, whatever improvements can be made the trade unions, the employers and the Government will ensure that those improvements go the way of those who most badly need them. I am of the trade union movement. I know it as well as I know myself. I know of its great generosity of thought, and this is why I believe that this lesson must be brought to them. For if we are now content to see lower living standards for people like the nurses—like those in many of the other public services—then I assure your Lordships that industrial problems will be even greater a few months from now than they are at this moment.
4.50 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, it is always a pleasure and an honour to be able to congratulate a newcomer to this House on his maiden speech, but such was the fluency and the persuasiveness of the speech to which your Lordships have just listened that I feel that in a way congratulations are almost an impertinence. I am sure that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, that we have all listened to him with great delight, and we hope many times to hear him in the future. Before making any observations on the subject under discussion, I should also like to congratulate my fellow academic (if he does not mind my using that term), the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, on his thought-provoking speech. I have no doubt that many of the points he raised in the course of an admirably short maiden speech will be returned to by various participants in the debate as it proceeds.

2187
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raises essentially controversial issues. It is a matter of congratulation for your Lordships' House that these controversial issues have so far been dealt with in the spirit of mutual toleration and sweet reasonableness which characterises our debates and which in my opinion is a clinching argument for this House's perpetuation. I think it true to say that all those who have spoken so far have in greater or lesser degree agreed upon one point—that the situation with which we are confronted is grave. Perhaps the term "grave" is strong for one or two of the speeches to which we have listened, but I imagine in the hearts of most of us at this moment there is a degree of anxiety concerning the future of this country, at any rate in the next two or three years, probably greater than has existed at any time since the war. Reference has been made in the course of observations to the various crises which have occupied our attention from time to time in the last 25 years. Those crises were "chicken-feed" compared to the the problems which confront us at the present day.
Consider for a moment the quantitative aspect of the situation. We are informed by that sedate and sober body O.E.C.D. that prices are likely to rise at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum in this country. There is a prospect—I will not say more—that costs may rise even more. Our balance of payments if we include the oil payments (and there is no reason for excluding them) is running at a truly alarming rate. Even the betterment to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred indicates a state of affairs which cannot go on for ever and which cannot for ever be sustained by borrowing from the Shah or from more anonymous lenders who have shown themselves willing to support sterling up to date. At the same time—and in some respects this is the new and puzzling feature of the situation—the inflation is already beginning to show its evil effects. The cash flow of companies, their resources of liquidity, have been eroded. Rates of interest are abnormally high because—Lord Gordon-Walker will forgive me if I say it—you can fool some of the lenders some of the time but you cannot fool all of them all of the time, and once they have "twigged" that inflation is going
2188
on at anything like the rate at which it has been proceeding in the last few years, interest rates are bound to rise if only to compensate. That in turn produces its effect on the Stock Exchange, on investment, and so on.
How has all this come about? Why is it that this community, so abounding in good will and decency and improvement on all sides compared to what it was in my young days or even 25 years ago, has got itself into this pickle? I often think as I read speeches by prominent personalities—I will not specify of what political affiliation—that the impression is widely diffused that this is some spontaneous evil, something which has come about as, for instance, the emergence of a new influenza virus might afflict us, a new virus for which for the time being no immunisation had been discovered. But, my Lords, this is not so. Generalisations about mysterious forces which affect the ups and downs of society from time to time may have something in them, but so far as I know they have never been demonstrated. The mysterious, impersonal forces may exist, but we do not know much about them and in my judgment it is not necessary to invoke their existence to explain where we are at the present time.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
We all know that inflation is going on in different parts of the world—this of course is the pretext for the exponents of the theory of what I call the collective virus. But inflation is going on in different parts of the world at different paces. Further, while external inflation is clearly an embarrassment for countries which try to exclude themselves from it, some degree of exclusion is not at all out of the question. Why is it, my Lords, that the Federal Republic of Germany, drastically defeated in the Second World War, is now the strongest economy in Europe? Why is it that the decline in the value of the mark since the new mark was introduced after a disastrous hyperinflation, has been much less than has been the decline here. Certainly they did not start with any advantage. Nobody who is acquainted with the circumstances of Germany before the currency reform can possibly believe that they had a flying start for the economic miracle.

2189
My Lords, I think that it is worth dwelling a moment longer upon this question of varying rates of inflation. What should a country do which finds itself surrounded by inflation or rising prices due to real causes in other parts of the world? What should a country do if the terms of trade turn drastically against it, as they have done in our case? With a drastic turn in the terms of trade against a country, there is clearly a situation of considerable embarrassment. In real terms it means that for the time being the amount that one can take out of the world dividend is less than otherwise it would have been.
Now what should be the remedy for a country which finds itself in that position? I do not say that it should drastically deflate, but it should, at any rate, moderate the rate of growth of any necessary growth in inflation; and, of course, in present circumstances, if the internal aggregate expenditure is kept advancing but slowly or is stable, then, with a floating rate, that can eventually put right the imbalance in the balance of payments. However, we have done just the opposite to that. In these circumstances, in the last few years we have inflated rather more than other people. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that we have landed ourselves in ever-increasing difficulties.
My Lords, I am prompted to leave the tenor of the remarks which I had planned with an observation by my great friend the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, who, by implication, if I may say so, slightly misrepresented the attitude which I should adopt in addressing your Lordships' House. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, that I am not a Friedmanite monetarist. I do not believe in tying one arm behind my back when coping either with inflation or with deflation, although, let me hasten to say, I think that it is far more infrequent than a great many people, whose ideas will be upset by it, are prepared to admit.
While I should be sorry to be thought to be saying that there was not an element of demand inflation in what has happened in this country during the last two or three years, of course I freely admit that some of it has been due to cost inflation. On that point—and I submit that it is not an academic or subtle point
2190
—it is one thing to say that one cannot fight cost inflation and reduce cost inflation by active monetary measures, and another thing to say (which I should not necessarily say) that cost inflation is much less likely to take place if the supply of money is not over-elastic. On that position, certainly I take my stand, in part, at any rate, as an explanation of the events of the last few years.
Certainly I do not take the view of Enoch Powell who says that the demands of various associations of producers have got absolutely nothing to do with what has happened and that it is solely the Government's business to maintain the integrity of money. Life is more complex than that, and it is quite easy to understand how Governments, faced with the unemployed which might result from containing the money supply in the face of cost inflation, have been willing to give way (in my judgment, too much) to what has been happening.
Addressing myself now to the question of practical policy in this respect, may I say in all candour to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington (I hope that he will not take it in any Party sense because I am absolutely glued to this particular part of the House) that I think that the policy which was pursued by the late Government up to the cuts of just before Christmas was a policy which contained fundamental inconsistencies. I myself think that while incomes policies usually break down in the long run and are attended by the greatest complications, yet it was certainly worth while trying an incomes policy, and certainly it can be defended on the ground that if an incomes policy is successful it tends to reduce unemployment. My apology for the adoption of an incomes policy in such a situation as one had, say, at the beginning of 1973, would be much more that if one were trying to contain inflation by fiscal and monetary measures, if an incomes policy were in operation, there would be less unemployment than otherwise would be the case. However, as we all know, the late Government—actuated, I am sure, by courage and public spirit—at once imposed an incomes policy and proceeded to indulge in deficit financing on a scale not known before in peacetime; and the result, I am sure, was predictable. It has, indeed, been predicted in this House by various individuals.

2191
My Lords, that Government has passed now, and one has to ask oneself what is one to expect of the policy of the present Government. I am not at all in love in all sorts of ways with the general policies of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some of these have been mentioned already by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and others have not been mentioned. However, I think that credit should be given to the Government and to the Bank of England for containing the rate of increase of money supply—indeed, for bringing it down at a speed which some monetarists would argue is likely to bring about effects which otherwise might have been avoided later on. These things act with time-lags, and a frequent time-lag is anything up to eighteen months. While I do not believe in the quantification of these things—too much quantification is bogus—the existence of time-lags is something which we all ignore at our peril. So far, so good; but in the meantime we have abolished the Pay Board. We abolished it last week. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reminded us, there will be coming into being an apparatus for arbitration and conciliation, it is no exaggeration to say, that at present the prospect is one of a more or less "free-for-all" in the market services. If that free-for-all explodes, then either the financial policy of the Government of containing the credit base and the rate of increase of expenditure is undermined, or there is real unemployment and a substantial depression.
While wishing with all your Lordships to raise a hope on the horizon, I must confess that I share the private gloom which was expressed in the columns of the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday by my dear friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Kahn. I feel gloomy about what is going to happen on the wages front in the next 12 months. I come from considering this morning a demand from an extremely nice and respectable body of people for an increase of 27 per cent., which is certainly an increase far transcending the norm laid down by the Trades Union Congress or that announced from the Government Front Bench last week by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he explained to us that it is the wish of the Government that increases in wages in the coming year should not be more
2192
than will maintain constant the existing standards of living.
What is the climate of opinion at the present time regarding this rather grave situation? I fancy that if there were some intelligent visitor from another planet, or even if we were visited by one of the gnomes of Zurich—one of the intelligent gnomes—he would be quite astonished at finding the columns of the newspapers, and a good deal of private discussion, preoccupied with the question of whether we should reflate on a massive scale with prices predicted to rise by the O.E.C.D. at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum. I have no doubt at all that the curtailment of the credit base and the cessation of the extravagant deficit borrowing will bring depression—it always does—and, certainly, it is the ideal objective of an incomes policy to reduce that depression to a minimum. But in the present state of affairs I am bound to say that the absence of control—although perhaps control was bound to break down—is likely to make matters worse.
Yet it seems to me that to go very far in the direction of reflation at this moment would certainly, ultimately, run the danger of there occurring something even worse than that. It would be bad enough to start reflating on any large scale if we were a closed economy. It might be mitigated by more index number devices, and so on, but it would be bad enough. But in our position we must remember that we are internationally vulnerable. Even if you leave aside the payments which have to be made for oil and focus atention on the rest, the adverse balance of payments is formidable and will certainly take some time to work off, even with the most austere policy.
In this connection, I might say that the existence of a floating rate is really no ultimate safeguard against the troubles which might be caused if the internal policy were to bring it about that trust in sterling was undermined. If sterling were to float downwards now in a burst of no confidence—and that is always possible even although we have in the kitty all sorts of promises of support and loans, and so on—it would not reassure people for long if they thought we were simply frittering it away on a reflationary policy. But a downward movement of sterling on any large scale at the moment would certainly affect us disadvantageously in more than one way.

2193
It would first increase the cost of imports and would therefore have a tendency, at any rate, to "ginger up" the wages spiral; and, secondly, as it proceeded, even despite the foreign backing, it would tend to increase the danger of a real run on sterling just at the time when we most needed to sustain confidence.
My Lords, I cannot forbear from saying that I am astonished at the absence of reference in public discussion at the present time to the general perils of the international situation. For good or for bad, in the last 15 years there has been built up in the international capital market an extremely rickety structure, of which the Eurodollar market is the leading species of a large genus; a structure in which, as distinct from local monetary sytems in the twentieth century, there is no clear lender of last resort. Although I think we may hope that at this stage in the twentieth century there is more wisdom than was prevalent at the time of the breakdown of the Kredit Anstadt in the early thirties of this century, still we really must not banish from our minds the extreme instability of international monetary affairs at the moment, and the possibility—I will not say the probability—of a general flare-up in which sterling would certainly not come off very well.
I will not say that in a year or two's time we may not need to take more risks; we may not need some reflation. The extent will depend, to some extent, on the degree of unemployment which has been caused by excessive income settlements in the meantime, but that date is still distant. The only plausible case for acting before then would be if one could assume that a more or less total incomes freeze imposed from now on, behind which there could perhaps be manipulations of a degree much greater than those dared by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to revive the failing confidence in industry and to give a stimulus to invention. But does anyone in his senses believe that such a policy is immediately practicable, whatever the vicissitudes of fortune may cause us to do later on? For the time being, for months, and I suspect a year or two ahead, we must endure some degree of recession caused by the errors of the past if something worse is not to happen. The question is, have we the will? In the last resort, there is a moral side to the confusion which affects public affairs at the present time. It is a
2194
test of the system of self-government, of which we are so proud. People have not been told, with the degree of candour that they deserve, the degree of danger in which they stand.
My Lords, at present my pessimistic verdict is that if the people were told they had a choice between some degree of recession or a perpetuation of inflation, many of them would say: "Get on with the inflation". But that cannot persist. At its present rate of depreciation, the value of sterling will be halved in less than five years. While the Latin American countries may stand that sort of disturbance, I am quite sure that our more complex and delicately poised society cannot. Sooner or later, the conception of trade-off will change and people will say: "For heaven's sake, stop the inflation no matter what the disagreeable side effect!" I hope it will be sooner rather than later. If not, I tremble to think of the convulsions this splendid society of ours, with its glorious past, may have to undergo.
5.22 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I will be very brief, because much of what I wanted to say has already been said so much better by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I was very sorry to be obliged to miss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which I am told was a very interesting speech indeed. However, I was very glad to be present to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, who was a colleague of mine in another place, and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, under whom I had the privilege of serving when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
My Lords, I suppose the first duty of a Government is the defence of the realm, and the maintenance of law and order. After those two duties have been discharged, I cannot imagine any greater duty which falls upon a Government than the preservation of the value of the currency. Any deliberate debasement of the currency is, and always has been, wrong. The currency has now been debased year after year. That is not defensible. It is rather the fashion to say that if one has a depreciation of the currency—what I call a debasement of the currency—by only a fairly small percentage every year, that is all right. That is the same as

2195
saying to someone, "You can walk into a store and so long as you pay for about 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of anything you buy, just put the rest in your basket. That is all right." It is exactly the same thing when one debases the currency, and I do not believe this is altogether understood by everyone.
The value of the currency can be preserved only by living within our means. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has given us some very good advice, as have other noble Lords. We have to make sacrifices. There are noble Lords in this House who remember the days of 1931 when everyone took a cut, starting with the highest in the land. Every Cabinet Minister and every Member of Parliament had a cut of 10 per cent. I remember it well, because I got a cut of a great deal more, as at that time I was a partner in a firm and at one time, the firm not only made no profit, but made a loss. It was accepted in 1931 by the members of all the Parties that such a course was necessary. It was accepted not only by Ramsay Macdonald, who was the Prime Minister, but by Philip Snowdon who was once a Lancashire Member of Parliament, and by Jimmy Thomas and many others. I pray for a unity of purpose in all the Parties of the State, to control our expenditure, and therefore to enable the value of our currency to be preserved. Unless we do this, we shall not be able to avert economic depression and all the disasters which might follow from it. I will not pursue that gloomy topic now, but I beg your Lordships to believe and to remember that the depreciation of the currency, its debasement, is something which can and must be stopped.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, a shower of praise has descended on my noble friends Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Lee of Newton, which was well-deserved, but their excellent speeches were anticipated. They are professionals from another place, with long experience in Government and occasionally on the Back-Benches. Naturally, we wish to hear from them frequently. If I may venture to single out one of the speeches, I would describe that of my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton as a breath of fresh air, which is urgently required in your
2196
Lordships' House and, indeed, in another place. I will not indulge in any more compliments, but perhaps I might venture to offer a word of praise to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I trust this will not embarrass him—
LORD CARRINGTON: It surprises me.
LORD SHINWELL:—because I think the first part of his speech was impeccably delivered, which we expect, and contained much common sense and much that ought to be uttered, not only in your Lordships' House and in another place, but throughout the country. In effect, his demand was that politicians should tell the truth. That is by no means an original observation. In the course of our frequent debates on economic subjects in which I have ventured to take part, I have used the expression myself. I have even gone to the lengths of offering advice, when asked by prominent politicians, Leaders and potential Leaders of the Party to which I belong. There was one occasion when a Chancellor of the Exchequer—I shall not mention his name—who was about to produce his Budget, sent for me and asked my views. Of course there was no revelation of details; no secrets were disclosed. I neither asked nor expected them. But when he asked for my advice I responded by saying, "Tell the country the truth." Unfortunately, my advice made no impact. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not say this directly, at least he said it by implication.
We have not at the present time, nor have we had for several years, effective political leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated that the problem is not of recent origin, which was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and he said that it extended far back for a matter of 29 years. He might have mentioned that for most of the period Conservative Governments were in. power. But I have no desire to impinge upon what is regarded as an economic debate by indulging in political polarisation. One could go much further back than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. In 1931, when the financial recession occurred in the United States, or immediately after it occurred, when we were faced with a financial crisis to which the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, has just

2197
referred, we entered into a coalition. It was a failure, not because it was a coalition—that might have been admirable in the circumstances—but because the circumstances were not favourable. The recession continued from 1931 until 1939 and was interrupted only by the outbreak of war.
There is another factor that must be recognised, and it is this. If we are in circumstances of extremity, speaking financially, economically, industrially and to a certain extent politically, they are not attributable to what has been happening recently, either under the previous Government or under the present Government. We are in this position because this country—and it is sometimes forgotten—was involved in two great world wars and at the end was bankrupt, and we have not yet recovered. We cannot exhaust our manpower, particularly our young manpower, our technological skill and our vast financial resources, which were available before those wars, and expect that the financial situation will be other than precarious. I do not venture to blame Governments for this. It has happened with all of them. Indeed, circumstances have never been favourable ever since the end of the Boer War. In a recent debate in your Lordships' House, I mentioned that before the first world war we suffered a series of vast industrial disputes, which were interrupted by the outbreak of war in 1914. I can recall the expression used in the newspapers of the period, in the common talk, "The country is going to the dogs." How often has this been said? It has now been repeated in rather more elegant language, but the substance of it remains.
What is to be done about it? I am getting a little jaded with going round and round the mulberry bush, listening and indulging myself, I regret, in the old-fashioned argument and trying to find a way out. It is like the maze at Hampton Court. You can get in with perfect ease but to get out is another matter. Indeed, when perhaps the greatest of our economists in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, cannot find a solution, and is not certain whether there should be reflation or inflation, what can other Members of your Lordships' House do? The fact is that, as the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Robbins, have said, and as the C.B.I. in a recent document
2198
which I have in my possession said, inflation is world-wide. Why is it worldwide? When you have a situation covering a lengthy period, when excessive demand is made on production and on food supplies, when aid is provided by the United States of America and Great Britain to the emerging nations as a result of which consumer demand rises all the time, causing inflation itself, what do we expect? A variety of circumstances are the cause of the existing financial situation in our own land.
How are we to escape? We have this polarisation. Here is the C.B.I. document. In a few words, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, almost repeated what is contained in this document. They sent out a brochure which I read with great interest. What did they say? They said, "We must hold on to free enterprise. We must not restrain dividends and profits. We must have nothing to do with nationalisation, and all will be lovely in the garden." That is one side of the political coin. What is the other side? Take over a vast number of industries—25; it may be more or it may be fewer—take control, direct their policy. That is the polarisation. I venture to say, "A plague on both your Houses." Why should I say that? I was myself the villain of the piece in connection with two major key industries, the coalmining industry and the electricity supply industry. I piloted the legislation through another place.
Why was it necessary in those instances? In the case of the coal industry, it was inevitable. The coal owners were tiring in any case. To provide modern equipment was beyond their financial resources and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly said—I hope note of it will be taken in the forthcoming Election—there is no question of returning to private enterprise. As for the electricity supply industry, that was a muddle. Much of it was controlled by municipal authorities, much was controlled and owned by private industry, and eventually we had to bring it together. Take, my Lords, the case of steel nationalisation. I must not violate the Official Secrets Act, but I will take a chance. At worst, they can send me to the Tower. When the question of the nationalisation of steel came before the Cabinet of which I was a member, I was in opposition.

2199
Why? I said, "We have had enough—coal, electricity, gas, civil aviation, the Bank of England and a variety of other key industries and services, and, in any event, this is too complex a task to undertake. We have to consider not only the production of steel. We have to consider the nuts and bolts associated with nationalisation. Leave it alone." But it was accepted, with the result that when a Conservative Government came back they denationalised steel; then Labour comes back and renationalises steel. Where are we now? We have got to accept this, whatever the cost; we cannot return to private enterprise.
What should have been done in the last ten years? I will not go back as far as that. Take the case of Mr. Heath in 1970. This in no way seeks to impute his motives or besmirch his integrity or honesty of purpose. The fatal mistake that Mr. Heath made in 1970 was his obsession about entering the Common Market. I do not want to raise a debate on this. But he was obsessed about the Common Market and maintained that by going into the Common Market all the benefits will flow. That is what he said: even wages will rise; we will keep wages down here, but wages will rise, even to the extent of £7 a week extra; the wonderful blessings would flow, no more weeds in the garden. An obsession of that kind is a mistake.
And then Mr. Wilson came back, some time ago. What should he have done? Distribute largesse everywhere? Even now Members of another place are to receive increases in their salaries, and vast increases for secretaries. I hope every Member of Parliament has a secretary and uses the secretary to advantage. wonder how many letters some of them get anyhow which would justify a secretary. But why at a time of inflation? I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. Why at a time of inflation raise salaries, provide increased secretarial allowances, provide this and that? The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, was a purely political venture, it really had nothing to do with an economic debate; I am sorry he is not here to hear me say it. Incidentally, a slight digression; he said that we have to curtail public expenditure; there have got to be sacrifices, pleading with your Lordships, but you cannot interfere with education. It is just like
2200
the noble Lord, Lord Carrington: he says, reduce public expenditure, make sacrifices, but do not interfere with defence.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to defend my noble friend Lord Boyle, but I do think the noble Lord has been misrepresenting him. He said precisely the opposite. He said he did not wish public expenditure to be cut. I was saying precisely what the noble Lord says, but of course that defence should not be cut.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what would appear to be a correction. But he is not altogether correct. The noble Lord, Lord Boyle, said there have got to be sacrifices. He did not specify who were to make the sacrifices. It just occurs to me that even Vice-Chancellors of universities may make a sacrifice, but there was no suggestion of that kind. There were to be no sacrifices in respect of expenditure on education, even on health. What is the use of talking like that? Those who talk about sacrifices should be prepared to accept them, to suffer them, but nobody wants to do that if he can avoid it.
I shall tell your Lordships' House what ought to have been done at the last Election. I hope those who are concerned get to know what I say. What they should have done was this. We are a minority Government. Look at the situation. See where we are, consider the problems. There should have been no distribution of any kind. Sweat, blood and tears if you like. We cannot afford it. I believe the country would have accepted it as they did during the war. If they do not accept it, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, it is a bright outlook for us all! What is to be done now? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, rightly, as I have said myself and other Members of your Lordships' House have repeated, that the country should be told the truth. It occurred to me when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was speaking—certainly from the first part of his speech—that it is a pity he did not make that speech when he was a Member of the previous Government. I would have enjoyed listening to it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I did.
LORD SHINWELL: Not in your Lordships' House. He may have made it in a private meeting of the Conservative Party; that is a different matter. He was the Chairman of the Conservative Party. He might have made the speech there, but it did not seem to have any effect. That part of his speech was excellent. In fact I should like to get it off by heart.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, since the Hansard printers are on strike and Hansard will not be published, I will send the noble Lord a copy.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am delighted. Why not let everybody have a copy. I do not want to monopolise the speech; I do not believe in monopolies. I come to the point. We have got to have an Election soon. After all, what is this all about? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had it in mind. So did the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, although he really ought not to be interested; let him remain with education, let him remain an academic.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, to whom we all listen with such delight, but I think he is extremely unfair to Lord Boyle, who specifically said he thought we could not maintain personal consumption although he thought that public expenditure should be maintained.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, this is not good enough, not even from the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and if I do not accept it from him I would not accept it from anybody else. Really, to defend the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, the noble Lord who has now decided that almost everybody associated with our political life is to have increases! Perhaps that has not been noted. Then they come along and talk in the way they do. I will leave it alone.
We are going to have an Election and we are going to have this polarisation again, this bickering and quarrelling, and at the end of the day what? Labour or Conservative? You never know what the Liberals may do nowadays. But either side—what happens? Again, promises and all the rest of it. It will not do. We have got to face facts. That is why I enjoyed and was intensely interested in
2202
the speech of my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton, who said higher production, yes, get your teeth into it, although there is some reservation; you can produce and produce and get excessive productivity but you have got to sell your goods. But our competitive strength is very good at the present moment and will remain so for some time to come, and so we can take advantage of it.
But what is to be done? Coalition?—no, I do not advocate that. But what I do advocate, whichever Government comes in in the next 3 or 4 or 6 months, is that whoever leads it, whether Mr. Heath or Mr. Wilson, must tell the country the truth. Even the Trades Union Congress General Council must be told the truth. They have offered a compact. Let them implement it. And if they are not prepared to implement it by voluntary means then we must make it statutory. Why did the last Labour Government fail when they produced In Place of Strife? I will tell your Lordships why. It was the penal clauses that made all the difference; that was the trouble. My trade union friends, with whom I was associated in the House when I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, were all prepared—and they had great influence with the trade union people outside—to accept the provisions of that legislation, except the penal clauses. It was on the penal clauses that the trouble occurred. A statutory incomes policy, a civil form of legal enforcement, is essential in the circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke about people who entertained, pop singers and the like, who received huge wages and so on. What appals me when I move about the streets and on buses and tubes is that I find vast numbers of people—not visitors from other countries—from our own land who do not seem to do any work at all. I agree that perhaps I ought not to say anything, but I indulge in manual labour. Perhaps I have no right to criticise others, but there must be not merely 500,000 unemployed in this country but thousands more who never register, and there is no control over it, no organisation of any sort or kind. Why, I do not know. I am not arguing for direct control of labour, but something of the kind has to be considered, and soon. I leave it there.

2203
Whoever comes in, Tory or Labour, must tell the country the truth, be realistic. Unless we are, it will not be a matter of surviving at a lower standard of life—perhaps we can accept that, and we may have to accept it—but something far worse, more disastrous, more calamitous, and we should do everything we possibly can to avoid that.
5.52 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I would have greater confidence in the present Government if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was a member of the Cabinet. I would ask his friends whether they would approach those people who have the Prime Minister's ear with a view to bringing that event about, because many of his sentiments were quite unexceptionable to people on this side. I think that he is the epitomé of a National Government in himself. It was a great privilege to hear for the first time speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Lee of Newton. Having frequently read their utterances in Hansard, it was a great pleasure to see them in the life.
I should like to confirm many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Limerick. Industry is definitely being starved of funds through inflation. I do not think that he mentioned it, but if inflation accounting was compulsory throughout industry to-day, there would be an awful lot of important sections of our economy which are running at a loss, and that is something that cannot be suffered for very long. I am sure that we all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, with the greatest of interest. People are very puzzled about this inflation which seems to have crept up on the world, and the noble Lord rather confirmed that. I am inclined to think that there is a simple story at the back of it, and that is that really incomes and credit in the world have expanded much faster than the raw materials, the food, and the skill that they would seek to buy. The remedy is comparatively simple, if one can bring it off, and that is to cut down the demand for the food, the raw materials, and the skill until they have caught up with the incomes and the credit supply. The trouble is that the rest of the world is involved too, and it is easy to go too far and get oneself into
2204
a horrible slump. However, we ought to set an example and try to do what we can ourselves.
The first essential is for political leaders to tell people the truth. We have heard that from many quarters to-night. There is no hope, for a few years at any rate, of rising standards of living in this country. The Arabs have seen to that. Politicians must ditch the comforting theory that any scheme for which there is no money available can always be financed out of printing money in anticipation of a planned growth. Growth is the mother of inflation, and if we want to stop inflation we must cease to calculate on growth. We shall get growth in due course if we increase our share of the overseas markets, and that is the healthy way to get growth.
We must not be panicked by unemployment figures. Those people who are really expert. I have heard, the people who administer, the Departmental officials, consider that approximately 2 per cent. of the population are virtually unemployable. When one considers the number of people with bad backs, bad chests, who are mentally deficient, retired but still on the register, people who like to do odd jobs while on the dole, and people who have no intention of taking up any work anyway, I do not think that those figures are wildly unbelievable. In addition, they say that there arc about 1 per cent. who are moving from one job to another.
That means that anything under the 3 per cent. locally must have an inflationary tendency because there will be wages drift. Anyone who wants to expand his industry has to bribe away employees from some other works, and you have costs going up and inflation. The trouble has always been that if there is anything like 3 per cent. in the South, it means absolute disaster in the North. That is why we have to improve our methods of dealing with these problems locally.
We must be much more flexible. At the moment in my part of the world we are suffering from gross over-employment. I believe that the figures are 7 per thousand unemployed. If you consider the categories of people who I said are virtually unemployable, anybody would admit that there are many more than 7 in every thousand. Above all, we

2205
must refrain from (or avoid like the plague) an expansion of credit all over the country to deal with regional unemployment. That is absolutely disastrous, and I regret that is the author of a great deal of our troubles at the present moment.
Inflation is the enemy of savings, and yet the whole existence of modern industrial society depends on a pool of savings which can be borrowed to expand and start up new businesses. But at the moment the traditional savers have been badly clobbered by taxation and the like, and except through life assurance there is virtually no saving going on at all in the country. We cannot continue to run an industrial society unless there is a pool of money that can be borrowed by industrialists. The measures taken in recent weeks, combined with inflation, have destroyed confidence in the security markets; no company can borrow on the Stock Exchange at the moment.
The only conceivable method of getting new money is by going to the bank and paying 15 per cent. for it, but how many schemes are there that can be put into operation and will show a profit on money borrowed at 15 per cent.? A very limited amount. That applies to farmers, too. I hear a farming friend on my right saying, "Hear, hear". We must somehow recreate the ability to create savings. Of course it will be automatically recreated if we can restore confidence in the currency. Meanwhile, I wonder whether we could harness the potential savings of those whose vital expenses are fairly low. I refer to the young, the unmarried. Some of them are getting very high wages indeed, and they spend freely on things which are not so essential. Yet in a few years' time they will be crying out for homes. Can we connect up those two elements so that we may encourage school leavers to start amassing some capital towards the payments of furniture or houses? That would be a help in this business of creating savings.
We are terribly prodigal of raw materials. We still live in a society where it is cheaper to produce many things anew than to reclaim the old. I think of paper in particular. I will not go into details of this lengthy subject, but the whole world would bless us if we used less paper, because we are all using too
2206
much of it. We could use much less of it, as we did during the war, if we set our minds to it. We still eat huge quantities of food, more than we need. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of the authority quoted in The Times of July 25. One has only to consider the shape of so many young people in this country to realise that that statement is probably true. If other steps fail, we may well have to ration food and oil in this country.
All these matters require leadership of the highest order. I am afraid that the politicians have become a debased currency owing to their perpetual electioneering. The swapping of "political Billingsgate" across the Floor of the Mother of Parliaments is not edifying and does not amuse the nation. To tackie inflation, which is a disease which could sink us, the people must be told the truth and what is expected of them. We must hope that they will react in our favour.
I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who wants to stop inflation; your Lordships may be sure that the Communists do not. We call them Communists, but they are really extreme Socialists who want to see the wreckage of the capitalist society in order to put something else in its place. Nothing would wreck society quicker than continued inflation. The moneylenders were doing well out of inflation some time ago, but of course retribution has come upon them. If inflation goes on, retribution will come upon all of us. Nobody will be able to opt out. That is why it is so vitally important that there should be moderate opinion among our leaders, so that the people feel they can follow and believe what they are told.
6.4 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I find great pleasure in joining the congratulations to my two noble friends Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Lee of Newton. It was obvious from their speeches that this House stands to gain a great deal in the future from the contributions which we shall most certainly expect. What they had to say was a combination of experience and wisdom, in both cases expressed with considerable eloquence. May I also join with others of your Lordships' House who have expressed your congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his speech? If the practice of the Government

2207
of which he was a member had been in accordance with the precepts he uttered, I am sure there would have been substantial improvement in the economy of this nation at the present time.
However, there were certain things which he said of which I believe the House should take heed. He emphasised the importance and significance of developing a nation that would be united in its recognition of the problems that lie in front of us, and determined to adopt collective action in dealing with them. It is a pity, when I remember the declining days of his own Government, that instead of the united Britain he talked about we had a Britain divided into two contesting, warring camps. However, that is the way of politicians, I suppose. So many of my noble friends have made the call for honesty in politics. Probably as a result of the expressions which we have heard this afternoon and this evening, there may be a change of heart in certain directions.
The problem under discussion to-day is by no means new. Listening to some of the speeches one would have thought it was a problem that had emerged only over the past few years. As I believe at least two of my noble friends have indicated, it is a problem that has been with us for a long time, particularly since the end of the last war when we have seen changing economic, social and political circumstances which have affected the economy of this nation. At the same time, we have seen a reluctance and an unwillingness on the part of the nation, both management and labour, to adjust itself to those changing conditions.
What, then, are we to do now? I know that some believe there is an increasing awareness on the part of people that these serious problems challenge their own standard of living. I wish I could believe that the majority of people in this country at this point of time really believe that the solution of our problems lies in their own individual efforts. We find that the public as a whole to-day have a faith and a belief in the contribution that can be made by Governments, by some new taxation law, some ingenious device of some kind, some panacea that will provide an instant solution to our problems, but that is not the way.
I think both Parties have suffered for a long period of time from the contribu-
2208
tion made by economic whizz-kids who offered all sorts of magic solutions to deal with these problems. Though I was trained as an economist, I can say with all sincerity that I would welcome any proposal that the whole bag of economic advisers should be transported to some lush and fertile tropical island and left there. I can assure this House that I would make my contribution to the relief ship that would inevitably have to be sent there in the course of the following few months.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord also add the statisticians? I believe that there are more statisticians in Government employment than ever before?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I do not know so much about statisticians. A statistician deals with the result. I am dealing with the people who offer the instant solutions. The only way one can deal with these matters is to generate in the minds of the people, management and labour, a recognition of the fact that in the long-term, and indeed in the short-term, the real solution lies in their own capacity to produce.
Quite frequently we hear comments about restrictive labour practices. I remember, as a member of the Prices and Incomes Board in its very early days, coming to the conclusion that British industry was far from being as efficient as it ought to be, largely because of the inherited attitudes and the old-fashioned methods that management was reluctant to discard. That had made as great a contribution to holding back the economic and industrial development of this country as had restrictive practices. I know, of course, that all too often Governments make mistakes. Perhaps the greatest mistake that the last Government made was the immediate destruction of the old Prices and Incomes Board: and within a period of less than two years they were trying to develop some sort of method that looked different but attempted to do the same job.
I would point out that during that period when I was a member, from the first day to the last—and in the last, difficult days I was chairman—we were able (and I give credit to the Labour Government of that time) to generate in the minds of the people some glimmer of recognition of the necessity for restraint,

2209
on the one hand, and of their own individual contribution towards increased productivity, on the other. Because if one examines the activities of the Prices and Incomes Board—and I take heed of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said when he commented upon the necessity, in his opinion, which I share, of having a voluntary acceptance of an incomes policy—one finds that, although it had the statutory right to compel evidence where it was needed, on not one single occasion had it to use compulsion in order to secure the evidence that was necessary to come to the right conclusion.
A further point is that during the sterling crisis of 1966 there was a period of standstill followed by a six-month period of severe restraint. During that time the Government had the right, which they exercised, to stop any price or pay increase without referring it to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am sure noble Lords opposite have lost sight of the fact that during that period, when the action of the Government was almost entirely dependent upon a voluntary acceptance, there were only 14 orders issued, 13 dealing with wages and one dealing with prices, by which the Government enforced their policy; and the 13 that dealt with wages were so insignificant that they referred to only 36,000 workers out of a total workforce of 23 million. That was an indication of the manner in which the Labour Government of that time had been able to generate an understanding on the part of the people.
As well as success in terms of general acceptance, there was success in economic terms during that same period. For the year ending June, 1967, the increase in the general levels of wages and of prices was little more than 2 per cent.—an indication of the success of an incomes policy practised by a Government and supported by both labour and management. So there lies the true contribution of Government: not coming along with all sorts of fancy ideas—and we are just as much prone to that as are noble Lords opposite. If only we could get a Government which, first, could generate in the minds of the people a recognition of the problem and some appreciation of their own contribution towards its solution; and, secondly—and this is where I think a Labour Government can most certainly do it better than a Conservative Government
2210
—could stimulate a belief in the minds of all people, and particularly the worker, a recognition of the fact that the burdens will be equitably distributed and also (which is of tremendous importance) that the benefits and gains will be equally shared.
I have no intention of making a political speech, but I would draw attention to a comparison of the two periods. I have here some figures that I took out, but I will not burden your Lordships with a lot of them. If we consider the rise in the retail price index (and the average worker is more concerned with food prices than anything else), and take the period from October, 1964, to June, 1970—a period of five years and eight months—we see that food prices rose by 31·1 per cent. From June, 1970, to February, 1974—a period of three years and eight months of Conservative Administration—food prices rose by 54·4 per cent. I mention that to ask: how can one generate in the mind of a worker a recognition that he has to make some contribution, when at the same time he hears Conservative leaders constantly shouting for greater profits? I do not think that "profits" is a dirty word. On the contrary, unless there are reasonable profits you cannot find adequate capital for industry. That, to me, is common sense. At the same time, when one is concerned with profits, let us know the destination of those profits; let us know how they are to be applied, how far they are going to flow into industry for the purpose of developing industry. That is equally important.
My noble friend Lord Lee made reference to the trade unions and to low pay. I would say that both Labour Governments and Conservative Governments have sadly neglected that problem. There is a great deal of lip service paid to this question of low pay. You even have trade unions which will make a demonstration to the effect that they are in favour of improved pay for the low-paid workers; but the improvement in the pay of the low-paid worker is usually used as a footstool to secure a greater advance, by improved relativities, on the part of those trade unions which are stronger and whose members are earning more money.
If I may again make reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, I remember that one of the last reports which was

2211
undertaken and which in my opinion was one of the most important, was that on low pay. We found that over the 84 years—84 years, my Lords!—during which we were able to checq from records the pay of manual workers, there had been no change in the relativity between those on the lowest decile and the median of the whole scale of manual pay. In other words, there had been no change at all, with all the improvement in pay. With all the increased pay over those 84 years, there had been no change in the relative position of the low paid.
I believe that what we should do is to try to analyse the real cause of low pay, to find out the defects in the industries that employ such low-paid workers and develop means whereby we can improve the efficiency of those organisations, and increase capacity for paying higher wages. In short, I come back to my original theme. We can depend too much upon what Governments can contribute. In the long run, much depends upon the worker, the management and the people as a whole. So far I do not think they recognise to the full their responsibilities.
But what I am sure about is that a Labour Government can demonstrate far more vividly than could a Conservative Government their capacity to undertake that duty—and for this reason. With all the wide division—for which I do not apologise—of views within the Labour Party, and of course there is a wide division because there is the ability to express one's own views in all their variety, there is at least one central purpose which provides the basis of all our activity; that is, the recognition that the greatest asset that this nation possesses is that of the people themselves. Therefore, in their education and skills, in their training and in their health, there lies the ability to meet the problems which confront the nation. Too much is made to-day of the great bonanza of oil which lies ahead: let us be grateful for the oil, but do not let us kid ourselves that it will transform the economic situation. Nobody pays attention to what it will cost to get the oil. Nobody thanks the oil sheiks who have made it possible by raising the price and justifying in economic terms, at the present moment, the production of our own oil.
2212
Let us remember that our total wealth in terms of coal is infinitely greater than the oil which lies off the coast. I say nothing at all to denigrate the efforts of the people who want to utilise this valuable asset. All credit to them, and I think that there will be a great deal of benefit from it. But I reemphasise what I said before. Do not believe that the oil will be the solution of all our problems. It will not. The Labour Government, in suggesting their social contract, may find that it will work or that it will not. But if it does not work I tremble to think what could happen to the economy of this nation.
The social contract is based upon a recognition by all parties in industry that, by working together and by having a joint faith in the common enterprise, some contribution can be made towards a solution of our problems. No more than that. I believe that the concept of the social contract is based upon the experience of the Labour Government and I am sure that nobody can offer a magic solution now, because there is none. What I think this debate has demonstrated, through the words of many speakers, is that we should look not only to Government but to ourselves at the same time, and should recognise that it is by our own personal efforts and by the efforts of our associations that this country will once again be great.
6.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I wrote my speech some days ago and since then Mr. Roy Jenkins has said a great deal of what I should have liked to say, and it has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and by many other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. My first reaction, therefore, was to delete my name from the list of speakers but I was persuaded outside the Chamber that it is perhaps a good thing if we all say much the same at the present time. This may well be so coming from the Cross-Benches and from one who is not an economist. My other slight difficulty is that my speech was certainly a little more acid than I think is appropriate for today's occasion. It was so because I have been making several of the points for a very long time, but it now appears that those which I regarded as most important are being accepted by a very large number

2213
of noble Lords. I shall try to reduce the length of my speech, but I shall cover most of the matters on which I intended to speak.
My Lords, in the first place, I think that we all agree that we have been and still are over-spending. In other words, in simple terms, we are living beyond our means. It is very easy to say that, but I also realise how terribly difficult it is for any Government to take really effective measures except in an extreme crisis. I think that they would see what unpleasant and possibly catalysmic effects might result. It would certainly affect any future Election and their popularity. What would happen if unemployment rose very substantially, wage packages decreased and there was a reduction in the social services and benefits? I think it is quite likely that we may have to accept all those things, but I can understand why Governments in the past have been reluctant to take any effective action. However, what I cannot forgive them for is the fact—and this point has been made many times this afternoon—that the politicians have not told the nation the truth. The truth is very important, because I believe that at this time the one thing that matters almost more than anything else is national unity and a sense of national purpose to overcome our troubles. To-day, one does not get this easily unless people realise that we have to buckle to if we, as a nation, are to have a reasonable future. I believe that the truth is all-important from that point of view. We have lost a sense of national purpose and, what is more, in exactly the same way as happens in a company when a managing director does not make the objectives and the situation clear, everybody is quite understandably turning in on himself and considering his selfish interests first. I regret, that nearly everybody is doing this to-day.
My Lords, I want to be very careful about mentioning labour relations and the unions. I studiously avoided saying anything at all on this subject on the recent Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I am one who believes that often there are a number of courses open. With hindsight, one may be able to say that one would have been ideal if it had been pursued. Of the others, perhaps one is bad and the remaining two others might both be successful if pursued with energy. Parties have tried a number of different
2214
ways out of our problem and, strangely enough, while denigrating the other Party for adopting a course which they described as absurd, have promptly had to adopt it themselves. So I believe very strongly that what we have to do to-day is to support the present Government in their attitude to labour relations and to the T.U.C. Whether or not it will be successful is another matter, but I do not think that anybody has a better suggestion at this time. I therefore feel that it would be the greatest pity if anybody's action spoilt chances which may exist of making this a success.
Having said that, my Lords, there are one or two points which I must make. I believe that the future of this country is dependent on good labour relations and that we must do everything we possibly can to attain such relations. It is very easy to go back and to see where along the road we have gone wrong. A few years ago, I used to say that if I were to apportion blame for bad labour relations I should apportion 60 per cent. to management and 40 per cent. to unions.
I shall not say what I might think today, but I certainly think it is time to say that management then utterly failed to show the first ability of leadership. If you are no longer driving people with a big stick, as used to happen in the olden days, there is only one alternative and that is by leadership and, to-day more than ever, by partnership. An organsiation, or a company, should be a partnership between the shareholders—entitled to a certain reward for their risk capital—the management and the workers and we must do everything we can to achieve that end.
I should have liked on another occasion to ask the unions and the T.U.C. to consider certain questions, but to-day I will say only two things: unions now have immense power and they must use this power wisely. It is quite clear that to-day the situation is very different from what it was yesterday, and I appeal to them to realise this fact and to make the changes that are necessary to fulfil the role they now play.
I am afraid that I am going to fall in to the temptation of saying one other thing on this point. Most people now realise that there is a problem of an extreme element. It may be a small one and it may be in certain areas only, but

2215
that it exists is undeniable. It also exists in many other organisations. I think it was about nine months ago that I said this in the House. I was only quoting from what other people had said and, incidentally, from what Mr. Wilson had said two years before. I got into a certain amount of trouble; many noble Lords would not recognise that it was true. I know that they knew that it was to some extent true but no doubt loyalty prevented them from admitting it. I think the time for this sort of loyalty is long past because one cannot put anything right or improve it without first realising that improvement may be necessary. I quote that example only because I believe that it applies to many other things, and that all of us ought to recognise when something could usefully be improved.
It has also been said, but again one must repeat it from these Benches, that at this time of national crisis there can be absolutely no excuse for espousing extremist or ideological causes. At this time we have to get the nation together, and there is simply no room for extremist ideas in a Party mandate. That point has been made clearly, but I do not think that it can be made too often. An extraordinary thing about Party politics is that a Party gets out a mandate, but very often some 30 per cent. of it is quite unacceptable to the great majority of the general public and yet Parliamentarians have the neck to get up and say that they have a mandate for doing these things. We must try to unite the nation by producing policies which are important to our national recovery and which unite the nation.
By the same token, of course, I must again say, as I have said so many times, that we cannot carry on some of the debates which occur in Parliament in the way that they are conducted to-day. Increasingly, respect for the two major Parties is being lost. It is extrordinary that in spite of the fact that this has been apparent for such a long time, Parliamentarians and politicians seem almost to refuse to recognise this simple fact. While I am on the subject I should like to say that there are some people who believe that the unity we need may not be posible under one or more of the Leaders—of our present major Parties. Should this prove to be the case, then I feel that it should not be too much to
2216
ask one of those Leaders to step down in the national interest.
I am afraid that I can see no easy way out of our problems. But I do not think one should be despairing. As has been said earlier on to-day, there are other nations which have been in a far worse state than we have been and which in fact have succeeded in getting out of it. France, of course, was one example, but they needed de Gaulle to do it. However, the last thing we should be is despairing. Nevertheless, I am sure that we should take the situation seriously enough to realise that there are at least two possible outcomes if things go wrong. Towards the end of last year the nation realised how the miners' conflict might have escalated into a General Strike; the use of the military to provide some supplies; inevitable violence; and, in the ultimate, probably an extremely Right Wing form of Government—or, if you like, a dictatorship of what remained of national life and its economy. If we realise the extremes of the way things might go, then it might help us to do two things: first of all, to appreciate the gravity of a situation; and, secondly, to avoid these extremes.
The other possibility I foresee is a continuing—and I use the word "continuing" deliberately because we are not in a sudden crisis—decline in our affairs. It has become increasingly pronounced, because the symptoms are now showing clearly—this decline will go on and a Socialist Parliamentary Party will find itself increasingly a slave to outside influence. The fear that the country may be ungovernable would then be true in the Parliamentary sense. No doubt we would continue to move in a Leftward direction, but the fruits of doing so would then be barren.
My Lords, the message that I have tried to give to-day is that national unity is all-important. Re-thinking is required by our Parties, politicians and unions. I am encouraged by to-day's debate to feel that many of those things are now happening.
6.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who has just sat down that this is no time for Party politics. As the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said, the economic crises that we have had in the past—and I hope I

2217
quote the noble Lord correctly—were as chicken feed to the crisis in which we now find ourselves. I remember that when I first spoke on the economic situation of this country about 18 years ago, I quoted Bernard Shaw who said that if you laid all economists end to end they would never arrive at the same conclusion. Having listened to this debate, I find that some of us—I do not know that we are all economists—have reached a conclusion, which is that the people must be told the truth. I have been trying to tell people the truth for 18 years. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Carrington telling the people the truth. I know that it is boastful for me to say so. but I have been making the same kind of speech for 18 years and nobody has listened. Now that Lord Carrington has made it perhaps somebody will listen.
As I say, we must get down to facts. We cannot entirely blame professional politicians for not telling the people the truth. After all, in the 18th and 19th centuries some professional politicians actually bought votes out of their personal pockets. That was bad enough, but it is very serious when to-day it happens that some professional politicians buy votes—I do not mean literally, but they influence voters at other people's expense by taxing the provident in order to promise the improvident more and more for doing less and less. That is why these people have not been telling the truth.
As we know, this debate is all about inflation, the burning issue of our day. Here I should like to make a point as an employer. I am a far smaller employer than I used to be. I used to have a factory and one or two businesses, but I am now a very small employer. However, I should like to put before you my point of view as an employer, because I have not really heard the employer's position put in this debate. I refer here specifically to unskilled labour. The trouble to-day is that society has laid it down that everybody, irrespective of what they can do. is entitled to a very nice car, a colour T.V., a very good house, holidays in Corfu and perhaps many other benefits. That is grand; it is excellent that everybody should have these things.
The trouble is that no matter how hard the unskilled worker works he cannot possibly earn those things in real terms. Of course, it is not his fault. Take a
2218
man harrowing sand on a building site filling up a cement mixer. He may be earning £60, £70 or £80 a week. No matter how often he barrows sand he cannot possibly earn that amount in real terms. That is one great cause of our domestic inflation. I am not going to embark on the subject of world inflation or external inflation, but the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said (I think quite rightly) regarding the high cost of imports, apart from oil, that the position has somewhat improved, and I want to stick to domestic inflation. I think it is very unfair on skilled labour when there is a man doing an unskilled job who may be earning more than the skilled man—and I have often known this happen. It is very unsatisfactory to have that situation, because the skilled man naturally becomes disgruntled, and you cannot blame him. How we get over that I do not know. I have no solution to it.
I should also like to comment on the situation of British management. If you compare British management with that in any other industrialised nation you find that it is paid far less, and there is no hope of rectifying that situation at the moment. What solution have the Government got? I cannot accept the mini-Budget as a solution. If anything, the mini-Budget will rather increase inflation. We also have this so-called social contract. It will be wonderful if it works. We always used to have free bargaining between employers and employees up to a very short time ago until the prices and incomes policy was brought in. But that bargaining was breaking down soon after the war. The Labour Government brought in In Place of Strife, which showed that it had broken down. Then we brought in the Industrial Relations Act. Why did free bargaining break down? I will tell you—indeed I think everybody must know this: it was because the employer is in a very difficult position to-day due to the fact that the employee can really cock a snook at him in view of the vast social services that we have, including national assistance for strikers' families. This puts the employer in a very weak bargaining position. That is why I very much doubt whether, apart from a great patriotic surge among all and sundry, the social contract will work. I certainly hope it will work, but if it does not work we must go back to some form of prices and incomes control.

2219
Several noble Lords have mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, among them the other day—investment in British industry. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was complaining and asking why private individuals do not invest more in British industry. Well, they would, but if a man has saved up all his life and has made some money, obviously he must have security, and when you see the industrial unrest that we have had in this country and the rates of taxation we have suffered it is no wonder that many people take their money abroad and invest it there. Provided they are not domiciled abroad, I do not think it hurts the country. Before the war we used to have a vast income from investments abroad, so I cannot see why the noble Lords opposite object to that. I can understand them objecting to people taking a large amount of money out of this country and becoming domiciled abroad, but if they invest abroad as British citizens resident here, I really cannot sec why objection should be taken to that. I should have thought it was a good thing.
LORD BESWICK: May I make it clear that I do not object to money being invested abroad. We benefit from the return on that. What I object to is the proposition that there is no money for investment in this country while at the same time it is being invested abroad.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, of course the object of investing money is to earn an income, and if the investor reckons that by investing abroad he can earn a better income with greater security than he could obtain by investing here, you cannot really blame him. It is up to the Government to ensure that the investor in this country has security. If he gets that he will invest here. I was absolutely amazed and could hardly believe my eyes when I read in the newspaper the other day—two or three days ago I think—that Mr. Benn is proposing to give £5 million of public money to the sit-in workers at the Triumph works at Menden. The National Investment Advisory Board advised him against this, but apparently he has taken the bit between his teeth and done it. Norton Villiers, the company that ran this firm, lost £4 million.
2220
Talk about helping lame ducks! I think this is about the lamest duck that can be helped. So far as I can gather, the owners of the plant have had their machinery taken over. Presumably there will be some compensation, but it appears to be a dangerous precedent if the workers can take over a factory making a big loss, and then get a great deal of taxpayers' money. The owners cannot get their assets out. How do you expect people to invest in industry if you have that going on? I do not want to sound flippant, but if we have any more of that "Bennery" we will be as free as birds in a cage with a fast-dwindling supply of bird seed.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? He referred to Mr. Benn and what he did regarding this motorcycle company, and to the investment of £5 million. Would it not have been to the noble Viscount's advantage if he had looked up some of the records of the previous Administration which he supported, to see what his own Government did during their term of office, before coming along and seeking to chastise a Minister of Her Majesty's Government of the present day beçause of the action he took? If the noble Viscount had done that, he would never have made the statement that he has made to-night.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I do not agree. I know exactly what the last Government did about that; they brought in the Act which enabled Mr. Benn to do that. If the last Government had been in power, I do not think they would have given £5 million to that works for that purpose. I understand that there are only 500 workers now there, but I presume that that number will be greatly increased under this new arrangement. We are to a great extent hoist with our own petard. We have this appallingly high loan rate for borrowing money. The reason for that is to get hot money into this country from the sheikhs and other countries so that it appears that we have a big reserve. A lot of business is done on borrowed money. When you borrow money at that rate of interest, it makes it very difficult to expand industry. Another disastrous aspect is that owing to this high rate of interest you have people who have free capital—I do not know how they have got it, or from where they have got it—

2221
but, instead of investing it in British industry they are putting it on deposit and it is not doing industry any good. They can earn more by putting it on deposit and getting a big interest, but it is lost to industry.
I do not want to keep your Lordships much longer but, as many noble Lords have said, we must cut our coat according to our cloth. Some public expenditure must be cut down. It must not be cut down, for instance, in helping old people or people in dire distress, but big projects—such as a motorway—must be cut down. I am sure that if the shackles of excessive taxation—and the Chancellor has done something miniscule towards that—were removed, this country would surge ahead again. We have tens of thousands of excellent young men highly trained in management. I know some who are contemplating going abroad if they cannot use their talents here. I was amused by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he said—and I agreed with him—that there appear to be tens of thousands of people in this country who have no job at all, and who seem to be wandering about all the time. About three years ago I quoted in this House a report from the appropriate authority which went to Southend Labour Exchange. They found 74 men who had been drawing all the benefits of the "dole" for the previous year, but who had no entitlement to it. If that is the situation throughout the country in every labour exchange, you will find a lot of people who are doing nothing and existing on the efforts of others.
I was employing a young man who gave in his notice only the other week. He is only 22 years of age and has a wife and two children. He lives in a very nice house. There were plenty of "perks" in his job, although I admit he was getting only £30 a week. But he was doing a simple job. I asked him, "Why did you give in your notice?" and he replied, "I have had enough of work. I am not going to work for the next few months, or perhaps for a year or two. I have found out that I can claim all these benefits so I am not going to work." That is a perfectly true story. That is one of the things which is causing inflation and dragging this country down.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble
2222
Lord, Lord Slater, interrupted my noble friend and since then has kept up a constant conversation. I am finding it hard to hear my noble friend's remarks above the noble Lord's conversation.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that I shall be sitting down in one minute. I should like to repeat that it is necessary to get people to understand how serious this crisis is. What on earth would have happened if we had not found any oil? Where would we have borrowed money from in the world? I do not know. People with large wage packets and nice cars would have gone to garages but there would have been no petrol. They would have gone to their favourite shops, but they would not have been able to buy the goods they wanted because the country was not able to import them. I do not know what would have happened. We do not want to be too optimistic about this oil. We do not know how it will work out. For all we know, when the oil starts coming from the North Sea the Arabs may drop the price of their oil right down. We must try to save ourselves by our own efforts. If only everybody in this country would understand that, we might then see the social contract working, but I have my doubts. I can only hope that there will be a great surge of patriotism and that people will understand how appallingly serious this crisis is.
7.0 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed, as an old colleague, to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, how very much I personally enjoyed the contributions which they have made to your Lordships' debate. They have passed the bourne from which there is no return to the House of Commons, but I hope they will find this side as agreeable as many of us do who have suffered the same fate.
One would need to be more insensitive to the significance of the occasion than I am not be conscious of the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House on this, the last major debate of this Parliament. I cannot—and I hope your Lordships will forgive me—resist the opportunity in passing of noting one thing. It is the fact that

2223
four votes amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill appear to have convinced the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment that there is an important issue in the cause of House of Lords reform. Your Lordships will remember that the genuine and sincere attempts of our Party Leaders in this House to eliminate the so-called built-in majority for my Party and to render the Second Chamber more valuable in our Parliamentary system were frustrated by a somewhat unusual combination of forces in the House of Commons. It is perhaps too much to hope that when, during the forthcoming Election campaign, the issue of House of Lords reform is featured in the eloquent speeches of the candidate for Ebbw Vale his audience will realise that he has achieved his due Nemesis. But perhaps an engaging and articulate public figure will remember too that here in this House Party affiliation takes second place to what we conceive to be the national interest. Nothing was borne out more clearly than that in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who was almost moving on to the Cross-Benches, at any rate in the first part of his address to your Lordships this afternoon.
We have the supreme privilege here of enjoying political independence while acknowledging the relevance of Party loyalty to the conduct of our affairs. This applies equally to matters relating to economic as well as to constitutional policy. In economic affairs where the actions of the Government of the day affect directly the material welfare of millions of ordinary people in the cities, towns and villages of this great and ancient country, no Party or faction or powerful sectional interest—be they bankers or brewers, miners or engine drivers, property owners or industrial workers or university students, have what you will—has an inherent right to pursue its own interests regardless of the legitimate and established interests of others or of the nation as a whole.
Our democratic system gives to the Party who wins a majority at an Election the responsibilities and privileges of Government. This does not, however, in my view mean that if 13 million voters cast a vote on way and 12 million voters cast it another, the 13 million, whether they
2224
be Conservatives or Labour, have a right to impose policies on a minority which deprives them of all influence in the conduct of affairs. Government in contemporary Britain must never be a matter of confrontation; it must always be based upon consensus. For this reason I became a critic of the late Government and the policy of confrontation with the trade unions. For this reason I am a critic of certain aspects of the policy of the present Government or what appears to be their policy with regard to nationalisation. For this reason I am a critic of some of the arrogant pretensions, while understanding the great power and the great importance, of the trade union movement. For this reason, long before it became fashionable in any quarter, and certainly in the Liberal Party, I put down on your Lordships' Order Paper a Motion advocating coalition.
My Lords, these are the thoughts and attitudes of a single independent Member of your Lordships' House whose allegiance has been with the Conservative Party over forty years. Around us to-day are the prophets of economic doom. Only their taste in similes differs—ahead of us is the economic avalanche, the financial hurricane, a collapse greater than 1931, a fate worse than post-war Germany's with wages being paid in wheelbarrow loads of pound notes; industry is investing too little; organised labour is demanding too much; confidence has evaporated in the City and by killing the equity market has white-anted the savings of ordinary people, whether they be shareholders or participants in pension schemes or dependent on insurance. And at this moment of difficulty and danger the professional economists appear to be divided and produce mutually contradictory advice. Some say reflate; some say deflate. Only one thing seems to be agreed on all sides, and that is that we are in a mess.
It is perhaps unkind to remind your Lordships that only nine short months ago the leaders of the Government in power were telling us that our problems were the problems of success. But as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has reminded us, there are certain things we should remember. For instance, that when the working week was cut by 40 per cent. industrial production fell by less than 10 per cent. It is worth remembering that it has been in those industries

2225
which have been nationalised that the principal crises in industrial relations have occurred. It is worth remembering that when in the past this country has been faced with a critical situation men and women of all classes have been prepared to make sacrifices, to accept disciplines and to surrender personal and sectional interests to win security and survival for our nation. It has not been the theories of economists or the manipulation of money supply or the Election slogans of the Parties which enabled us to survive these crises in the past. It has been our ability to mobilise the political will of the nation to make the effort, in peace or in war, which has given us success and survival.
Our problem to-day, my Lords, is very simple indeed. How can we now mobilise that political will? How can we galvanise the energies of this great nation? How can we create a willingness to make a united effort to prevent the avalanche or the hurricane which we are told lies ahead from destroying the very great achievements which past sacrifice and enterprise have bequeathed to us, and the freedoms and prosperity which we seek to pass on to our children? I know that I am saying simple, unsophisticated things. Yet I know I would be right in claiming that the factor which will pull us through is not the expectation of North Sea oil or the Labour Party's social contract or the Conservative Party's People's Charter. These latter may or may not win powerful protagonists, but they will not generate the political dynamism which in times of crisis has enabled the British to save themselves by their exertions. One does not release the latent energies of this nation by propounding easy options or offering political formulaæ.
I know that it is unfashionable now to remind an English audience that at a moment of supreme crisis a coalition Government mobilised the nation with a policy of, "blood, sweat and tears". But if in a very different but perhaps equally dangerous crisis we are to secure the future for the people of our country, it will not be on the basis of sociological formulae or slogans of professional politicians but by an appeal to the undiminished capacity of our people for sacrifice and service. And the first sacrifice which will be required will be some of the political prejudices and personal aspirations of many
2226
of those who will be elected to the next Parliament after the forthcoming Election.
It is no good pretending that the material standards of living in this country will be maintained at their present level during the next five years. It is no good pretending that the sacrifices will be equal. Many will go bankrupt, many will become unemployed and many will not become unemployed. Many will make a significant contribution to our survival, and some little or none at all. Some will be disruptive, anti-social, selfish; but the vast majority of people will have a sense of unity and a call to serve something beyond the humdrum, dreary routine of existence which will give us the political will which is essential to restore confidence in Britain's financial and industrial future.
The remarkable thing is that at this present moment when the City of London is sunk in depression and when our economists are prophesying economic disaster, when our detractors in America, in Europe and in the Communist world have chosen to write Britain off, some people are prepared to invest money here. The Shah of Persia is to lend us £500 million. Maybe it would have been better if we had earned that amount by our exports, but it was, at any rate, a show of confidence that he should do that. A sheikh from the Arab States—an old friend of this country—has invested in London property; and although the pound sterling has gone down marginally in the foreign exchanges it has remained remarkably stable, in spite of all the depression in this country. I think that this means that folk abroad have more confidence in Britain then we have in ourselves. They are gambling their money, and some of them their political future, on the ability of Britain—this strange, this curiously unpredictable, this old, stable, powerful, undefeated and uncorrupted country—to show the vitality and leadership which, over so many centuries, we have given to the world.
My Lords, this not an economic crisis or a financial crisis. This is not a matter of trying to ensure in the future that our people "have never had it so good". The issue to-day is whether ordinary men and women, trade unionists, shareholders, property magnates, bankers, farmers, pensioners—all the immense diversity of life and interest in this country—by an act of

2227
political will-power can give to our country a strength which restores our fortunes and which gives an example to struggling, depressed man kind elsewhere of what can be achieved in a free society. I believe that a challenge such as this will, and does, appeal to ordinary people and will mobilise that political will which enables all classes to sacrifice their interests and to concert their energies to promote the general welfare. Of course I may be wrong, but I believe that this can only be done in the context of a National Government.
Coalition, like devaluation, is a dirty word until it actually happens; then suddenly it becomes identified with the national interest; suddenly the country throws off the trappings of partisanship and the dreary, old political formulas; suddenly so much that was impossible becomes vitalised by an act of political will undertaken by the nation. This is what the country is waiting for—not for some contrived, economic panacea, but for the resurgence of a national willpower to rise from self-discipline and sacrifice and be responsive to the example set in Parliament, in the leadership of the great trade unions, in the leadership of our great industries and of our financial institutions in the City of London and, indeed, in the leadership of all those who have in their hands the levers of power. It is not a role for one single individual, and a National Government must draw purely on resources of ability and leadership from outside Parliament.
My Lords, I have no doubt that such a Government will emerge within the next twelve months. The tone of most of the speeches in this debate is clear evidence that minds are moving powerfully in that direction. If we in this House on this occasion—the last debate of this Parliament—has hastened the coming of that National Government in any degree, I think that we shall indeed have rendered a service to the nation.
7.15 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I intended to speak on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, but because Mr. Heath announced that the Conservatives will not try to introduce another Industrial Relations Bill, I thought that I would reserve what I had to say as having more relevance to this debate. One of the deficien-
2228
cies of the Party opposite is that they have no active politicians who have come up through the hurly-burly of industrial life, like my noble friend Lord Lee, who could advise them about what to do over labour relations. The result has been not only confrontation but provocation, and it will be a very long time before the dust which was raised by the last Administration has anything like settled.
A deep understanding of the trade union movement is essential in any Government. I reject the notion that the unions are motivated mainly by what has come to be known as "the politics of envy". To call it that is a superficial comment and a way of avoiding awkward questions. In my own judgment, my friends among trade unionists and in the Labour Party possess among them no more than the ordinary human share of envy or jealousy. In fact, according to my observation there is more jealousy over money among "haves" than among "have nots".
Your Lordships will remember that a standard plot for the average, upper middle-class Agatha Christie "who done it" features a murderer whose motive is to get hold of the money in somebody's will, or who has killed in revenge for not having received that money. I was looking at such a thriller on television the other night. The detective was remarking that each of the many suspects had a motive for murder—murder for money! We were given to understand that it was quite natural. Your Lordships, especially noble Lords opposite, know of rich families throughout the ages, and nowadays, who have been riven and even beggared by quarrels over money. How can one, then, believe that jealousy about money is a characteristic which is confined to the working class?
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I find no jealousy among the working class of the immensely wealthy film stars and pop stars, or even of Georgie Best with his chauffeur driven Lamborghini and his private aeroplane. Such money is beyond the achievement, and probably beyond the comprehension, of most people. However, I find that there is indignation at the arrogance and smug self-satisfaction which so frequently goes with wealth; and it is not jealousy which nearly led a friend of mine to put down a Question on the Order Paper

2229
asking why it is that the yellow lines in Bond Street do not seem to apply to Rolls-Royces, chauffeur-driven or otherwise. That is the kind of needling thing which annoys people who do not have the money to buy a Rolls-Royce.
The motives which lead people to demand more pay are not always simple. An industrialist once told me that he thought that about 80 per cent. of the pay disputes in his factories were not directly connected with the desire for more money, but were, a means of articulating grievances about other matters. He may have been putting the percentage too high, but at least he knows more and has tried harder to learn than those television interviewers who have evidently never seen the inside of a factory, who do not appear to know anybody who works in a factory and who really have no idea about what is going on.
I, for one, very much regret that, time and time again, what most news editors are evidently seeking is not news but drama. There are some people in public life who enjoy stirring things up and living in an atmosphere of crisis. They are the kind who make wars and who are not of much use to us in peacetime. However, thoughtful discussion and prosaic negotiation do not make attractive headlines or suit the trumpeting introduction to the television news. In real life there is very little drama, as the editors of local newspapers recognise on the whole, much better than their national counterparts. I believe that is simply because local editors are more in touch with real life. Sometimes a national newspaper will take up a cause, as the Sunday Times did in regard to the thalidomide children or The Times did with Adam Fergusson's excellent articles about the destruction of Bath. Campaigns like these can be very effective, but an analysis of labour disputes would entail detailed and un-sensational investigation by journalists of experience and patient understanding, and they would have no abrasive headlines along with their properly documented statistics. Then we would not get a situation, as we did during the last miners' strike, when mostly we heard stories about how the moderates and the Left were bashing each other, but there was no hard information that I or any other person whom I knew could find, about
2230
what a miner really earned or what he really thought of his job.
Just now there is a dispute among the printing unions which I believe threatens the jobs of nearly 3,000 people in the International Publishing Corporation and, of course, we cannot get Hansard printed. Surely 3,000 jobs at risk are a matter of public concern. Is the fact that we have read very little about this dispute due to circumspection on the part of editors while negotiations are going on, or is it due to a belief among journalists that, being a subject they can really know a lot about, it may be too complex to inform the public and they think their readers will not buy it if they print it?
Pay and labour relations are of overwhelming importance in our existence as a trading and manufacturing country, and they are very complex subjects. Yet the public are about as badly informed upon them as it is possible to be, and things will not get better until people are encouraged to take an informed interest in them and not have them represented as gladiatorial fights to suit newspaper typography or to provide action on the screens.
I am by nature optimistic, but I must confess that at times in the last month or two I have been depressed. With respect to certain friends (not in this Party) who have been promulgating the idea of a coalition, like the noble Lord, Lord Alport, I think they are missing the point. The coalition idea is floated from time to time by conservatively-minded people as a way of expressing no confidence in a Labour Government. I have greater confidence in Party Government. When the two Front Benches get together it is not always healthy for democracy. Yet hardly a day goes by that I sit on these Benches when I do not remark to myself on the fact that, broadly speaking, the Party opposite represents the employers and this Party represents the employees. It is a confrontation which has been going on for over 50 years now and we should have grown used to it, and we should know that it is a confrontation which neither side can win. It is not exactly a class confrontation—and this is where I disagree with Mr. Mayhew. I would say that there is more class consciousness in the U.S.A. than in this counand very much more in France, and, of course, the classes in Russia are as stratified as anywhere in the world. What has

2231
happened in these countries is that they have purged their class consciences by republican revolutions and now they can relax and pretend that they have no class divisions—which is totally untrue.
However, whatever the causes of our Party divisions we ought all to know that any Government formed by one Party has to live with the possibility that at any time there may come along a Government formed by another Party. That means that great differences though there are in beliefs and policies and emphasis, no Government when it comes to power can afford totally to alienate the other Party, to the extent of bending their mind to overturning everything they can of what the previous Government have done. Yet when the Conservatives returned to power in 1970 they proceeded to do just that. They were a Government of unprecedented Conservative militancy, and the result was such a passionate alienation from that Administration among people whose good will and influence matters, whichever Government is in power, that it grievously affected—and still affects—labour relations and it soured attitudes by the uncommitted or the unconvinced towards our membership of the Common Market.
While I voted against the Industrial Relations Bill in every Division I could get to, I voted for membership of the Common Market, despite the fact that that Bill was supposedly so word perfect and divinely inspired that it was hectored through both Houses without amendment. The indignation against that on this side of the House—or it was then on that side of the House—was immense. No Party's credit stands so high that it can afford that kind of attitude, even if it were an acceptable way of governing, which it is not.
I hope that we stay in the Community. I take with a pinch of salt any partisan calculation as to what the benefits or losses may be of being in or out; any experienced businessman will tell one that the cost of a project which one wants to do comes out cheaper than the cost of something which one does not want to do, and where the balance of benefit is fairly fine, as it seems to be in this case, the costings come out according to whether one is in sentiment a nationalist or a supra-nationalist. I am a supra-nationalist, both through sentiment, and
2232
because the facts of life—the sheer speed and facility of communication and very close trading interdependence—are making nonsense of nationalism as an economic proposition. Nations developed out of the feudal system as parcels of land marked off and including the people within, organised as economic units with defended frontiers. If you have common trade, inter-investment and a common defence policy there is no point in nationhood. I do not see much future for nationhood. I am sure that the idea will cling on, but I do not see much future for it, except possibly to produce football teams or as an excuse to organise beauty contests.
Nations tend to be aggressive because that is their origin and their purpose. But "Great Britain Limited" ceased to be a fact when we merged with the Common Market. The people who have joked that Britain was "Heathco" have really got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is the opponents of our membership of the Community who see themselves as managers of their own little autonomous business. But I do not think that Ministers are necessarily the best people to run businesses. I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, say that this country is ungovernable: I think that in some respects it is too easily governable and this tempts Governments and Ministers to fiddle around with matters that they do not know much about, and at least part of Britain's poor economic performance has been due to constant changes in political theories and in taxation policies by Government's of all colours; from "lame duck" policies to wholesale nationalisation, and perhaps back again, until nobody knows where they are. That may be one reason why money is going abroad. One thing that membership of the Community may help to do is to lessen the temptation: slow-moving change we can all adjust to, but rapid vacillation is bound to be bad for business and the morale of the work force.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not go much on the output of economists, although I read it with interest. I allow that they are very necessary, but are like something said of Bishops: whenever you get a dozen of them together, there are thirteen different

2233
opinions. They cannot even agree upon what has happened, let alone on what will happen or what ought to happen, so it is no wonder they say that Treasury officials grow old early. They have difficulty in practising common sense which, in my father's excellent definition, is only something you have tried before and which has not turned out too badly.
My Lords, the situation changes all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Alport put it very well, if I may say so; if you believe some people things are always changing for the worse. Last year, some were saying the opposite—that it was only going to get better. We have heard from noble Lords to-day that there is a crisis, that we must tell people the truth—if we knew what it was—that we must work especially hard, we must make sacrifices and so on. But people have heard it all before and on the whole the standard of living and the quality of life has gone on improving for most of them just the same. If this is a crisis, it will need a cataclysm to make anyone take much notice. If a cataclysm did come, for the doomwatchers and the headline writers to rub their hands, it would be too late for any of us to do anything about it. So the best we can do is to avoid dogma, to avoid provocation; and, every Government being only of a Party which reflects only a minority of the electorate, must work its hardest to take everyone along with it.
7.32 p.m.
LORD KAHN: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that the economic position is too grave for professional economists to try to conceal their differences, and possibly it will be agreed that on this occasion I am justified in making a more academic speech than is my wont, in an attempt to unravel the character of one of our main economic troubles. I should say at once that I am much in agreement with the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth and with much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. My noble friend Lord Robbins began his moving speech with an appeal for controversial issues to be dealt with in a spirit of mutual toleration and reasonableness. The speech of my noble friend was certainly delivered in that spirit. I fear he will find me less tolerant than I found him. If my fear is justified, I offer my apologies.
2234
My Lords, as I shall not have time to deal with them, I mention now three particular issues on which I am in full agreement with my noble friend. First of all, there is the extreme gravity of the economic position. Secondly, I not only agree that the fact that sterling is floating is no safeguard, but I regard it as a positive menace. Thirdly, I agree that at the present time it would be wrong to carry demand reflation further than the extremely modest amount by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried it through the adoption last week of his measures. When I say that, I naturally have in mind the prospect of another Budget in November, after a reappraisal of the economic position.
It is my strongly held belief that the behaviour of the price level in an advanced industrial country is mainly to be attributed to the behaviour of money wages, and to the behaviour of the prices of imported products. It is perhaps right that I should say something about two alternative views which are closely related!
My Lords, as an interpolation, I entirely agree with those who speak of the momentum generated by one or two years' experience of rapidly rising wages and prices, and its effect on expectation. Perhaps the simplest explanation of any rate of cost inflation is that it is the rate which happens to have prevailed sufficiently long in the recent past for it to be expected to continue into the immediate future. That is not inconsistent with my attribution of the behaviour of the price level to the behaviour of money wages, but it means that a brake on the momentum is needed. The question is whether, as I think, the momentum should be gradually eased off, or whether it should be suddenly checked at the expense of a severe shock to the economy.
My Lords, one of the alternative views to attributing cost inflation to the behaviour of money wages is that if only unemployment is maintained at an adequately high level, the behaviour of money wages and of the price level will be tolerable. The statistical history of recent years, not only of this country but of all other advanced industrial countries, has led to the abandonment of any attempt to establish a precise quantitative relationship between the level of unemployment and the rates at which wage and price levels rise. But in qualitative terms, it is

2235
still widely maintained that the trouble has been that unemployment has been too low and unfilled vacancies too high. Of those who held this view, few would be prepared to advocate levels of unemployment which would clearly be politically unacceptable, probably resulting in revolution, and of which there has been no experience since the war.
Of course, I agree that shortages of labour in themselves result in rising wages. Such shortages need not be nationwide but may be, as they invariably are, confined to particular areas, industries and skills. It is only if unemployment over the country as a whole is as low as 500,000, and unfilled vacancies are correspondingly high, as in the period from early 1964 to early 1967 (but not since, except at the very end of 1973), that I would expect a general decline in the pressure of demand to result in a significantly lower rate of increase of money earnings, averaged over the country as a whole.
Since the middle of 1967, unemployment has been over 520,000, a percentage of 2·2, except at the very end of 1973. I should mention that all my figures of unemployment are seasonally adjusted. I have heard it maintained that the influence of unemployment on the behaviour of wages is revealed by the statistics of the last seven years. I have before me a table showing the percentage increase of average hourly money wage earnings for each 12-month period beginning in November and ending in the subsequent October, from 1967 to 1973, compared with the average percentage of unemployment for the same period.
It would take too long to deploy my statistics in detail, but the upshot is not merely that wage earnings have not risen less fast when unemployed was high than when it was low, but precisely the opposite. The increase of wage earnings grew steadily from 7 per cent. in the 12 months ending October, 1968, when the average percentage of unemployment was 2·3, to 14·6 per cent. in the 12 months ending October, 1972, when the average percentage of unemployment had risen to 3·7. In the 12 months ending October, 1973, wage earnings rose by somewhat less—13·6 per cent.—although the average percentage of unemployment was lower at 2·7 per cent. Thus the figures, if they
2236
prove anything, prove precisely the contrary to the theory which I am attacking.
The most sensational change in the rise in earnings occurred between the end of 1968 and the end of 1970. Between November, 1968, and October, 1969, the rise was 8 per cent. In the subsequent 12 months it was 16 per cent., exactly double. Unemployment was almost exactly the same in the two periods. The clear explanation is the effective abandonment of an incomes policy by the Labour Government towards the end of 1969 bartering away, in an attempt which proved unsuccessful, to secure freedom from strife and to pass their long Industrial Relations Bill, which is similar in many respects to the subsequent Government's Industrial Relations Act which is now in course of being repealed.
The Conservative Goverment came into power in June, 1970. It was not until the autumn of 1972 that they were forced to accept the need for a statutory counter-inflationary policy. The enormous rise in the world prices of primary products started in the middle of 1972. The fact that in spite of its repercussions on the behaviour of the cost of living, money wage earnings in the period November, 1972, to October, 1973, rose by not more than 13·6 per cent., somewhat less than in the previous 12 months' period, is clearly to be attributed to the statutory control. With falling prices of primary products, a wonderful opportunity is now being missed, as a result of the abandonment of statutory incomes policy, of fairly rapidly decelerating the rate of increase of wages and prices.
Unemployment began rising at the beginning of 1971. It reached a peak of 875,000, a percentage of 3·9, in March, 1972. It is my belief that this high level of unemployment actually contributed to the cost inflation, by creating resentment on the part of trade union leaders and their members, and by encouraging militant and unofficial industrial action. Furthermore, trade union leaders were taking the line that as the Government did not appear to be taking adequate measures to reduce unemployment, it was their duty to do so by accelerating the upward movement of money wages, believing, rightly or wrongly, that this would result in a rise in real demand and a reduction in unemployment.

2237
I turn now, my Lords, to the other view alternative to the belief that the behaviour of the price level is mainly to be attributed to the behaviour of money wages. I turn to the widespread belief that it is all a matter of the behaviour of the money supply. Among the partial adherents to this theory is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his Budget Statement of March 26, he referred to the rise in the money supply of 27 per cent. in the financial year which was just about to end. Over the four recent banking months from mid-February to mid-June, the quantity of money increased by only 1 or 2 per cent. The Chancellor said, in announcing his measures on July 21, that he was satisfied that their adoption would not jeopardise his objective of keeping the rate of growth of the money supply under control.
It is obviously the case that the behaviour of the quantity of money is related to the size of the public sector deficit, though the quantitative relationship between the two can vary a great deal. There is a tendency to attribute the effects on the economy of a reduction of the public sector financial deficit to the slowing down of the growth of the money supply, in which a reduction in the public-sector deficit usually results. The causation is mainly a commonsense one—the effects on the levels of output and employment, the reduction in demand which results from a reduction of public expenditure and an increase in taxation.
My Lords, I am not saying that the supply of money is of no importance at all, although for my own part I prefer to think in terms of rates of interest, the state of credit and the ability of the banks to lend, which to a considerable extent are subject to Bank of England control irrespective of the behaviour of the money supply. Taking the line that I do, I have to meet a highly reasonable challenge. If the growth of the money supply fails to keep pace with the rise in the price level and the growth of output, what will happen? Or, indeed, what will happen if the money supply is kept constant? My answer is that rates of interest will progressively rise, the availability of bank credit will progressively fail to meet the needs of industrialists, and generally credit will become tighter and tighter.
Unemployment will progressively increase. I have already argued that this
2238
will not appreciably influence the behaviour of money wages, at any rate until unemployment has reached a politically unacceptable level. But my brief answer to the challenge is that there will be a disastrous slump with all the consequences of such a slump. I need not stress the difficulties of emerging from a slump and the serious economic damage which a real slump would impose on the economy. But I agree that if a slump is successfully engineered it will prove a salutary lesson to trade union leaders and trade union members who will realise the importance of restraint in future wage bargaining. This is subject to one important proviso; that is, that the political Party which constituted the Government held responsible for engineering the slump, survived the subsequent General Election—a most improbable supposition.
My Lords, I share the gloom of my noble friend Lord Robbins and many other speakers to-day. I earnestly hope that my doubts about the efficacy of the social contract and the guide lines of the T.U.C. will prove exaggerated. I earnestly hope that the wages front will not be too severely shattered—though I fear it will—by the time whatever Government is in power in October next finds itself forced to resume a statutory incomes policy.
7.50 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I find myself as usual five hours after the debate has begun and feeling that I might retire and spare all noble Lords the infliction I am about to perpetrate, but on this occasion I am afraid that your Lordship's will have to bear it because I am going to make my speech in any case.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has come in for several encomiums this afternoon about his transition to this House from the other place. It is no secret between us that we both fought an election on the same day, he in Smeth-wick and me in Ashton-under-Lyne, in the first two by-elections after the 1945 General Election. I do not know what his experiences were on the last Saturday night, but I will relate my own. They told me I was certain to get in if I stood on a soap box in the market square, which I did. It was a very cold night and I kept going; I was not very good. A tramcar making a grinding noise came round the

2239
corner, and I took refuge in shouting out to the crowd: "I can hardly hear myself speak", and somebody at the back of the crowd quickly said, "th'art missing nowt, lad"—(you are missing nothing lad). That may be the case this afternoon.
Before I get going on my own speech I should just like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, who has been dealing with the matter of unemployment and its impact on wages and the atmosphere generated by wages negotiations, that the basis on which he is working could very well be faulty—not Lord Kahn's interpretation, but the figures on which he is working, could very well be faulty. While I was Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire I went round many towns asking for information about the level of unemployment in those towns, and the consensus of opinion was that 38 per cent. of the people on the books could never work again either by hand or by brain. At that time unemployment was running at around 700,000. If Lord Kahn will get this publication Unemployment, March 1974 he will see the figures nearly corroborate my contention. Figures of unemployment are used for electoral purposes, but perhaps one of these days an incoming Government will have a bit of sense and put the unemployable people on a social register and so leave them out of the electoral or other argument. Then we can get down to a true figure. That is all I have to say on this. I mention it because I have brought it up several times in this House, and it really is time the true position was stated.
I am not talking this afternoon either to the Stock Exchange belt or to the owners of cars outside the hotels and pubs that I pass on my way from Manchester to where I live. These are people who nightly cat out and have plenty of money to do it, and can look after themselves. I am talking about ordinary folks, some of whom used to work for me, and are now retired; thrifty persons who stood by this country in thick and thin through two World Wars and what they have to endure today and why.
The inflation that we are suffering is the most insidious of all our ills. It is undermining values. It is imposing burdens on the weak, and therefore injustice follows in its tracks. It makes good ordinary law abiding citizens desperate
2240
and disruptive. It is this last fact with its terrible consequences which should steel us to fight this evil and never give up. It frightens capital that should be put to profitable work, and encourages the "spiv" and the speculator, all at the expense of real production. I do not think there is anybody who has not totted up what it means in terms of their own personal circumstances. We all know that 10 per cent. inflation doubles prices in seven years. But looking at the record we have now, we are considerably in excess of that figure. Its cumulative effect is even more serious. If we take the figure, as Lord Beswick did (although I think he missed a little bit out), of 10 per cent. inflation, for a chap earning a modest £40 at the age of 25, if his real income is to rise by a modest 2½ per cent. a year, at 65 he will have to be on £250,000 a year and taking his weekly wages home in a wheelbarrow. At 10 per cent. again, a man of 65 retiring on a two-thirds of salary pension of £40 will find by the time he is 80 his pension is worth £10 a week.
The current taxation policy encourages inflation too. For instance, when a man gets a rise he automatically goes into a higher tax bracket. So the average wage earner must have a rise of 13 per cent. or more gross to take account of the 10 per cent. rise in prices. What I want to say relates to the period from now on until the decision is arrived at to hold an Election. What I say now I hope has some slight effect on people's thinking and decisions as to what should be done. I contend that this and the next Government will have enough on to occupy them cleaning up the mess of ill-thought-out schemes by previous Governments, without embarking on massive controversial legislation for the next three years. The work of fighting inflation and the need to restore to these Houses of Parliament the authority they have lost during the last twelve months is enough work to last Parliament for a full five years. If they do that and they restore that authority such a Government will have the thanks of a grateful nation.
My contention about ill-digested schemes is really addressed to items in a Manifesto which may appear to attract votes but in reality tie a successful Party in Government to things that are not altogether for the benefit of the country. We have seen Maplin: it is no more. It

2241
has left a massive mess in its wake. The Channel Tunnel scheme is under a rigorous scrutiny, so is Concorde, and so is the Bank of England competition and credit extravaganza. Arrangements for North Sea oil are being drastically revised, and British participation in the Common Market is up for what we call "fundamental renegotiation". "Maplin embarked on without adequate argument or evidence", say the experts now. And the experts say that unless machinery for testing multiple sources of advice is developed, the long-term public interest will continue to be ignored, and the nation's money wasted.
Who doubts now that a similar criticism could be levelled at Concorde? It was embarked on with a total disregard of all the lessons of previous experience gained in advanced projects. It may have been a political gambit at the time to try to convince the French that we were European-minded; but we want to be wary of political gambits, as I shall seek to show in a few minutes. Who denies today that a complete mess was made of the North Sea oil arrangements? Surely we all agree with the Daily Telegraph survey that a substantial part of our oil heritage was given away for a song. Expert warnings were given about the money for the free-for-all Bank of England competition and credit scheme. With regard to Europe, every day that passes brings fresh evidence of the lack of competence in researching in depth before we went in. I am afraid that the researching will not be done before efforts are made to get us out.
Industries in this country, like the wool industry that I have been devoted to ever since I was 12 years of age, have been doing their homework. This morning they have come to this conclusion:
"The potential net gain to our industry is estimated at £53 million a year by 1977 if there is no decision to withdraw. Withdrawal, we strongly believe, would not be in the best interests of the nation as well as the wool-textile industry."
In terms of employment, this could represent over 5,000 jobs in our industry. One thing I should like to impress on your Lordships. Whatever is done at this juncture, from now until the Election, let it be modestly done and well thought out.
In connection with this question of the E.E.C., this House and the other House
2242
have set up a Select Committee so that it can alert these Houses as to what is going on in the Common Market. If the Members of both Houses need a Select Committee to be set up to alert them to what is going on in the Common Market, what good is a referendum in the country? If we do not know, what do the people know about it? I will not enter into a discussion on that question, but what I want to do now is to make a plea for the ordinary folk who see changes in our society accelerating at a terrific rate. Everything seems to be called into question. People are living more from day to day, there is more vandalism, breaking up, the education system is turned upside down, genetic experiments all over the place, sprawling confusion of lifestyle, and generated consumers' "over-choice" by advertising. We hear about children turning to drugs because life looks bad, and the adults bury themselves nightly in T.V. We think about the boundaries which have caused so much distraction and trouble. That was lack of thought—that was lack of real research, if you like—and the trouble has been caused and is still going on.
The Government were very astute and wise in doing what they did about rents, because the revolution that would have taken place on the rent front would have been gigantic. There was a determination in the country on that point, and that is attributable to the lack of thinking out the problems of boundaries. People have been shoved around too much. They do not want an Election fought on controversial issues at all. What they want is a steady, sober approach to the job in hand, and the opportunity to vote for the Party they believe in without a lot of extravagant promises which do not stand any chance of being fulfilled, and might be harmful to the country anyway.
Take another one, decimal currency. What maniacs ever introduced this? Why? The Government who introduced this ought to be out of Office for 20 years. It has made our people less thrifty. They do not count the change any more. They are expecting inflation all the time and getting ready the next round of demands. While people plead about the amount of investment that they ought to be doing, the country has a mentality of "Give me more, more, more." That is" taking

2243
out "; investment is putting in. So we have to change attitudes.
I shall soon have finished, but I want to say something about the chorus of "Tell the people the truth." I have not heard such a unanimous chorus for years. Everybody seems to think that everybody else is likely to tell lies. I should like to add to one one or two of the choise mottos which we have put over. Everyone who thinks that. if you have a free choice consumer society, you can get along without unemployment, is a fool. You are asked by a thousand agencies to buy "this, that or t'other", and according to how the influence works so unemployment goes up and down, and it is not any good anybody thinkiing that you can maintain full employment.
I should like to see the three Parties agreeing on three or four major joints. For instance, there is no reason why the three Parties should not then say on half a page in every daily newspaper from now until the Election what they agree on. We all know what the country can afford. We all know what the dangers are. It would go a long way towards unity if the major parties could be seen to be agreeing on a few basic principles for getting out of our trouble. Tell them what the nation can afford and what it cannot. Tell them that honest cooperative endeavour is as necessary to-day as it once was. Tell them that we have to pay back what we borrow. Tell them these simple things. Tell them that the ones who are taking more out of society than they are putting in are stealing from the weak. I have finished.
A week or two ago I went to Blackburn. My task was to run up the Union Jack. There were five neighbouring authorities and they all ran up their own flag. Mine was the last. Proud I was to do it. I turned round to some schoolchildren and to one girl said "Did you like that?" She said "Oh, I did" She said, "I hope it does not come down.". So do we all, where we are groping towards this unity which we all know is highly desirable, yet somehow we walk along and pretend not to notice it. We generate heat about differences which really do Parliament no good. I hope that in the coming Election the Parties will be prudent and modest in the claims that they make and,
2244
perhaps agree on four basic principles at least.
8.13 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, it is always a singular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, because if there is one person in either House of Parliament to-day who can talk sound, simple common sense it is the noble Lord, whether or not his views are in accordance with all sides of your Lordships' House. But I think certainly the penultimate words of his speech will command very wide support.
I wish to join also in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, on two notable maiden speeches. From another Lancastrian like the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, again gave us some good earthy common sense. Much of what he said needs repeating in every boardrooom and at every works council throughout the country.
As was said earlier, it used to be the case that we debated the Finance Bill as such at the end of the long hot summer of Parliament. But times have changed and to-day, perhaps more than almost any other time, the debate has been wide-ranging. But I think it is none the worse for that. It might be that if all 26 noble Lords who were speaking were locked in a boardroom and told to thrash out a policy for the next Election and not leave until a reasonable policy had been thrashed out, some sensible projects might be brought to bear, or certainly some sensible ideas, because I think we have had during the course of this debate a number of notable ideas put forward.
One thing which needs to be said is that Members of the other place and Members of this House are to a large extent themselves engaged in business, commerce or industry at varying levels. Therefore in a sense perhaps we wear two hats. We see the problems in our own businesses and we have to come here to try to relate them to the state of the nation as a whole. I myself am concerned particularly with two small businesses, one in the management consultancy field and one in the property field. In both cases we are at the moment going through a very serious situation, particularly in this country. One hears a great deal of extremely depressing talk these days in all walks of

2245
life, from management right down to the shop floor. We have in this debate had such depressing talk about honesty in politics. Such reference is highly desirable. In this country honesty in politics is infinitely more in evidence than in a great many countries throughout the world, despite the fact that every now and again there are certain lapses either at the Election hustings or elsewhere.
This is human nature because we live in a vast, moving society and in a changing economy which is largely governed by world and international conditions. Of course there is a need for all politicians who have Party labels in both Houses to "come clean", as is said in colloquial circles.
But not every setback is necessarily attributable to politicians as such. In a democracy a Government are elected who put forward legislation. The legislation is contested and the end product eventually comes out. We have had a typical example of this in the industrial relations legislation which has been going through Parliament for several years now in an attempt by both political Parties to produce an industrial charter. To some extent both Parties have failed. I say, "to some extent", because although the legislation of the Conservative Party has been scrapped and the legislation of the Labour Party foundered while it was being discussed, I think some valuable lessons have been learned. One thing is quite certain; that sooner or later—I think sooner than later—an industrial charter of some kind will be necessary.
We suffer, I think, very largely from a failure in communications. The failure is to some extent with politicians. Perhaps it is that the media is relied on too much, rather than the much healthier discussion at the hustings or the much more realistic discussion in Parliament; and too often Parliament is subordinated to what happens on a television programme when a senior Minister or "Shadow" Minister is asked at very short notice extremely complicated questions which he or she cannot always answer objectively. This, I think, is one of the great dangers today: that politicians, or some of them, perhaps spend too much time in front of the television cameras—it is not their fault, because if they are invited to do so they can hardly escape it—and perhaps too little time answering in Parliament,
2246
and even less time, in some cases in their constituencies. I believe that is why there is disillusionment with politics in some circles to-day, and why the economic situation which we face is a very serious one. And it is not only this country, my Lords. There is scarcely a country in the world—and this point has been made many times—whether it is Eastern Europe, whether it is in Australia or New Zealand, whether it is anywhere on the African Continent or in any other place one cares to mention, where inflation is not rampant in some form or another. As was said earlier, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his usual notable speech, the pace of inflation and the period it lasts varies from country to country; but it is a worldwide problem, and I think one which is undoubtedly very serious.
My Lords, references has been made to the wages structure of this country. I do not want to continue yesterday's debate (in which I had hope to speak, but a previous long-standing engagement prevented me from doing so) but there is not doubt that those who work in our social services have been grievously underpaid for many years, and it may well be that some of the industrial unrest which we have seen, and which I think most of us deplore, has been a corollary of this. There is no doubt whatever that any future Government will have to take a very long, clear look particularly into the social services vis-à-vis our economic situation, because we have relied a great deal on people from other countries to come and help us in our hospitals and elsewhere. But, my Lords, as these countries themselves achieve a higher standard of living, the people themselves are going to recognise the fact that they want remuneration commensurate with these standards, and I think this is one of the important points which this debate should bring out.
My Lords, I want to say just a word about the construction industry, because this is one of the industries which is-undergoing one of the most serious recessions at the present time. Seven hundred workers were recently laid off at the London Brick Company at Peterborough, and indeed it is reckoned in the Estates Gazette that it may well be at least 1976 before the construction industry really gets anything like off the danger list, as one might say in medical terms. This is,,

2247
I think, partly because construction workers are inadequately paid, which I believe is in turn partly the cause of the "lump", as it is called, which is not popular among the members of any political Party, although I think that in some cases it is inevitable if the job is to be done. But quite clearly this needs looking into very seriously; and I think the rather hasty legislation with regard to the property companies, which was not the fault of only the present Government but of the penultimate days of the last Government, has done a great deal of damage here. It ought to be said that there have been charlatans in the property companies, and it is always easy to look behind them. These people should have been dealt with a long time ago, but not by the kind of piecemeal legislation that we have had, which has had very serious repercussions on property companies generally, consequent upon which has been the effect on a number of pension schemes.
My Lords, it is impossible at this time, I think, for anyone to predict the future with confidence. There is speculation that there may be another Election this autumn, possibly in early October, as the evening papers seem to think. But one thing is quite certain: at the Election hustings, whenever the time comes, we shall not get the same kind of temperate speeches which we have had in your Lordships' House to-day—and this, in any democratic country, is reasonable. But time is short, and it may well be that whoever form the next Government will have the future welfare of this country in their hands for many years to come.
8.28 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for missing a little of this debate. I listened to about 14 speeches, and then I was called out. Shedding light on this difficult position is indeed a terrific task. I have listened to speeches made by scholars and professors; I have listened to speeches made to-day by men who have spent their lives in industry on the entrepreneur side; and I have listened to constructive speeches made by my two noble friends who made their maiden speeches to-day. I have also listened to a professor of economics, the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, who can stand up in a House like this and say, "If we have a slump
2248
ultimately it will be a salutary lesson for the trade union movement". I have never heard such a devastating statement in my life from a professor of economics. It will be a devastating lesson. I lived through one such period. I was in Germany in 1930, as I have said before, when the Anstallt Bank collapsed. I saw men sitting on park benches who, a few months before, had owned factories; I saw men and women scratching for bread; and I saw marks you could paper a wall with. Unemployment salutary for the trade union movement? Men were throwing themselves off skyscrapers in New York at the time. This was the devastation of human fibre.
We have treated this debate with a certain lightness, but without claiming divine omniscience in the solution of the problem I want to try to throw a little light on it. Speaking of light, there is a new vogue called lateral thinking. Nobody quite knows what it means, but everybody is uttering the phrase on the media and in the papers. Talking about throwing light, I can give a concrete example of lateral thinking concerning my own grandfather. He was an old scoundrel of a farmer in Wales who employed a boy from about sunrise to sunset. He caught this lad in the open one night going up the mountain with a storm lantern, burning his paraffin. He hollered up the mountain in Welsh, "Boyo, where are you going?" "Oh, Mr. Davies, I am going up the mountain." My grandfather said, "What are you doing?" "Oh, I've finished my work; I've been working all day and I'm going courting." "What," said my grandfather, "going courting with oil and wasting my paraffin? I never went courting when I was your age!" "No, Mr. Davies, and judging by the look of your old woman you'd have done better if you had!"
I think that we should have done better if we had had a bit of concrete light on this debate. We have had masses of statistics. It is like looking for uranium in Denver. I think kids were taking Geiger counters out there looking for uranium and they found it. We have had masses of lovely gems of statistics. Those gems have been piling up like, as I said the other day, piling Pelion on Ossa. We have a load of facts disseminated through the Chamber in what is a clever speech,

2249
but when it is analysed where are the constructive approaches? The truth is, very few. We do not know all the answers to this; but there are some which jump out, and I believe they have not been touched on to-day.
Am I right in assuming that one of the fundamental questions is that production in the world to-day is beginning no longer to rest on the worldwide division of labour, with exchanges of goods produced by extensive specialisation in different places? Production is now spreading over the globe at a uniform level. My noble friend who spoke about the production of cotton in Lancashire must understand that one can now produce cotton anywhere because one can create the necessary climate artificially. The diversity of climate and location of material has now, by the shortening of distances, been overlapped. Now such a spread is making new demands on energy. We have this problem of nuclear energy, and we are not quite sure how to use it yet. Euphoric statements were made. I listened to several lectures by Oliphant and others; I took a deep interest in the problem of nuclear energy, but the euphoric statements given to us by scholars and physicists were so wide of the mark that it was pathetic. How do they expect the laymen to give the answer? I remember the marvellous Manchester Guardian pamphlet on Zeta—the new machine that would control the explosion of the hydrogen bomb and turn seawater into gold. Good God! They were talking like mediæval alchemists. All they wanted was a couple of lizards hanging in the dusty studies where those articles were written and we should have been back with the touchstone for schoolmen of the 13th century.
My Lords, today I heard one of our professors speak about Germany's wonderful leap forward. I quoted in this House a year ago, and I shall quote again, the words of Sir Frederick Catherwood, Director General of the National Economic Development Office. I am fed up with everybody knocking Britain about Germany and its massive miracle of production. Let us get at the facts. Catherwood was in that office in 1966 to 1971, and he said,
"The importance of currency payments on defence account can be seen by contrasting the position of West Germany with the
2250
United Kingdom. In the 1960s West Germany received from the stationing of British and American troops foreign currency which, after agreed 'offset' purchases, amounted to at least £1,500 million. The United Kingdom, by contrast, paid out £2,500 million, less negligible offset benefits, for its troops around the world: the difference between the two countries over ten years … is a staggering £4,000 million."
My Lords, that was the difference. If that £4,000 million had been put into the electronic and electrical industries in that period, as my noble friend said in his excellent maiden speech, we should have been level with Japan and Germany in those industries which have now spread all over the world. So let us kill this myth that the British worker was a lazy animal. He was not; he was anchored, tethered by lack of investment at home. I shall prove it as we go along. The Keynesian chickens are coming home to roost, though Keynes did a brilliant job. Do not scoff at Marx. Half of those who scoff at Marx have never read a word of his. He gave mankind a tool to measure with. As Newton and others in mathematics gave differential calculus and fluxions which measured things in movement, Marx did the same thing for the measurement of production in movement. One need not be a Communist if one tries, not to say that he was omniscient, but to understand through his eyes the working of 18th and 19th century society.
The capitalist did a first class job for England in the 18th and 19th centuries. He taught man how to produce. He taught the idea of the small firm. But we have not learnt the secret of how to distribute and still keep alive the profit motive. I do not know the answer to this and I should be a fool if I pretended to, but it is now being questioned and there is an erudite article only this week which I have been reading called "Can the Profit Motive Last as the Motive Force of Production?" What Keynes said contradicts much of what has been said here today, and it is still true. In a general theory for full employment, as he defined it, he said that it could only be maintained provided that the Government were prepared to intervene.
Let us take that axiom of Keynesian theory. I ask my noble friends who have been pontificating about public ownership, are they not prepared for the Government to intervene in industries which

2251
can no longer give profits—the railways, the cutting of coal? The railways should be a social service to-day. We are having absolute public squalor in public ownership because of the unwillingness to help. The Health Service is breaking down. If we had only given some of that £4,000 million—one-quarter or even one-eighth—to the Health Service over the past five years we should have had a splendid testament to the social responsibility to the British people of all political Parties.
So, my Lords, I think that both sides of the House should try to agree that the State must intervene in certain areas of production and, if we do agree, let us stop calling each other names about public ownership or—and I use the ugly, cacophonous word—nationalisation. Cannot we get common sense about this instead of snarling at each other, because it is true that more and more areas—even shipbuilding has to get its vast capital from the Government—need this support? Where are the Keynesian chickens coming home to roost? A friend of mine wanted to borrow a very small sum of money recently. He is in a small business. I asked him how much he wanted. The minimum he could borrow from a merchant bank was £10,000, and that would have been at 18 per cent., so that in just over five years his entire capital would have been swallowed up in interest.
One cannot stand that sort of strain. The profitability of entrepreneurs is being thrown to the usurer. At least King Henry VIII, despite his love of wenches, conducted his economics better than his love-making, because he limited the rate of interest in his day to 10 per cent., though even that is a whacking enough dividend. Legislation must do something about what I now call usury. If they are not prepared to do something, let the Government go into merchant banking and lend, like the Coal Board are sometimes prepared to lend for building houses, at about 6¾ per cent.
I have been speaking for 12 minutes and I assure your Lordships that in about three minutes I shall try to finish, because your Lordships are tired. Therefore, I reiterate that the interest on money is reaching a point where profits from legitimate business are less than the annual
2252
burden of interest repayments. Speculation of the most arid kind is thereby encouraged and we do not get the true merchant adventurer, entrepreneur spirit of the small capitalist who made a contribution to Britain's production up to and just after the First World War. I will sit down very shortly, despite the many things I originally thought I would have said if I had got on the tapes at about 7.30 p.m. instead of at a quarter to nine.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, in what, if I do not sound condescending, was a good constructive contribution about coal. There are 270 pits in Britain, and 800 coal faces working while we are sitting here. Men are hacking at coal. We need another 100 million tons of coal a year for energy. The amount of coal for energy that we will need by 1980 is 300 million tons. I confirm that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, was correct. The new Selby coal which we have now found by sinkings in the Yorkshire coalfield, is of more importance to us and will be longer lasting than the oil. We should be investing more money than ever. That is where the Keynesian theory comes in. We should try to get agreement across both sides of the House and in the other place. More investment should go into the mining industry. There are 800 coal faces, but we have hundreds more that could be worked from next week or on which work could be beginning if we had the capital and the investment.
Despite my own enthusiasm, like everybody else has for his own speech, I shall have to stop myself lest the speech get the better of me, or like a pal of mine in Hamburg who could not stop at the end. Let me give a figure which to me is amazing. The multi-national firms are wrecking Governments. Let me give some figures about the shift in the balance of power—the Chryslers, the Fords. The total assets of foreign companies in this country at the end of 1972 was £3,800 million, whereas the total value of overseas investment by British companies was £8,070 million. That is more than twice as much British investment overseas as there is multi-national investment in England.
Why did not some hundreds of millions of that £8,070 million invested overseas

2253
go into British industry and British machine tools? We are running down old machines yet our own investors, mostly in multi-national firms, up to 1972 put £8,070 million overseas. What are we to do about this? The multinationals in Britain are second only to those of the United States. I believe that the time has come When we should look at our defence and be prepared to realise that we are no longer an imperial power in the world. Get a sensible agreement with the United States; do not betray the United States and do not betray the Atlantic system, but get around the table and say, "Look, we have to approach this in a new way."
Secondly, I believe that we should have physical control of imports. Some of the rubbish that comes into our shops and for which money is paid is undermining our industry and is costing millions of pounds to the British taxpayer. We should have the courage in this transitional period to control imports. Lastly, we should look at our banking system, the apotheosis of the pound sterling, under which we try to maintain the value of the pound. Investment in Britain is too difficult a problem to be very dogmatic about, but I sincerely believe that we should spend some time and scholarship looking at this matter in depth.
May I finish with these words. Do not let us keep knocking our own country. I am quite sure that if we can show the spirit that we showed after Dunkirk—and all of us lost some of our families—when without the help of Russia and the United States we were able to stand alone, and if we can show that spirit without animosity but with the eager cooperation that we had in wartime, and use it to solve in peacetime these economic problems, we have nothing to be afraid of. This is something about which we can grit our teeth and get the greatest possible agreement for the maximum number of cures to help cure the inflation problem.
8.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to start by apologising to my noble friend Lord Carrington. because I did not hear the whole of his opening speech, and equally to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because I did not hear his speech at all, and to the maiden speakers as I did not hear them either
2254
because I was detained in a Select Committee. But, as has happened more than once when I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, we have found, despite contrary attitudes on many matters, a surprising measure of fundamental agreement.
I address myself in particular to his plea that we should give ourselves tonight to some concrete aspect of the desire for national unity, which is common to both sides of the House. I pick as my theme the words of my noble friend Lord Carrington early this afternoon that "North Sea oil is no substitute for our own efforts". It is a phrase that has been repeated one way or another in speech after speech. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said "it will not solve all our problems". Indeed, the ultimate delusion of a deluded and bewildered people is that North Sea oil might somehow save an economy as frail and feverish as ours. If there has been one chorus, one refrain, that has run through this debate, it has been a litany of prayer for unity of purpose, and oil indeed provides a case in point.
On that we need a policy that is energetic, we need one that is intelligent, but above all we need an oil policy that is bipartisan. Let us at least see whether we cannot achieve a common mind. Real sacrifices will be well worth while if we can get a policy that will stick. The one thing that Britain cannot afford is to allow oil to be treated as a Party political shuttlecock after the pattern of steel.
There has been much criticism of the Government's recent White Paper about a British National Oil Corporation with a 51 per cent. Government stake to administer what is known as a "carriedinterest" programme; that is, a programme whereby the Government, who issue licences for exploration, reserves to themselves the option to buy a stated percentage—arranged each time differently—in the result of the operation if it is successful. This policy has, in my view, been grossly misrepresented, or at least grossly misunderstood, by being denounced simply as nationalisation.
But nationalisation or no, who are we Tories after Rolls-Royce and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders to continue to be shocked by slogans whether about nationalisation or indeed about public participation? Nor, my Lords, am I

2255
mesmerised by the magic of a so-called 51 per cent. controlling interest. If there is one lesson from the take-over struggles of the City in recent years it is that as little as 40 per cent. can give effective control of a public company. We arc already accustomed to 48 per cent. in B.P. So why boggle at an extra 1 or 2 per cent. that does not really make a great deal of difference to the essence of control if, thanks to the impetus of rhetoric, that is what is needed for a truly Socialist cosmetic?
We should give credit where credit is due; we should honour the Ministerial academic turned guru whose handiwork I think this policy largely is, and be thankful that the Government have at any rate wriggled themselves off one hook of their Election Manifesto. They proposed a state of monopoly to buy offshore oil as well as natural gas; that has now been quietly forgotten.
For the sake of a bipartisan policy on North Sea oil, surely we should take on board both the 51 per cent. Government stake in the proposed British National Oil Corporation and its exercise of the carried interest option in licences to be issued in the future. But I stress those words, "in licences to be issued in the future." How a carried interest policy is managed, what percentage stakes to try and get in future licences and discoveries is another matter altogether. One point is certain now. Any suggestion that by the muscle power of Government negotiation present licensees should have a carried interest retrospectively forced upon them—anything of that kind would be unethical; anything of that kind could drive the rigs away to more favourable climates elsewhere; anything of that kind would break faith with this new race of merchant venturers to whose skill, to whose daring and to whose investment we are so greatly in debt.
The Government answer—and one appreciates the argument—that what is proposed is that the State would buy out past exploration costs after a process of negotiation and thus ease the cash flow problems of the exploration companies. But what about the cash flow problems of the taxpayer who, in the shape of the ratepayer, has been the object of such solicitous attention from Mr. Healey
2256
not many days back? Unless the taxpayer is to be fleeced of hundreds and maybe thousands of millions of pounds before crude oil landings have generated new revenue, a single possibility remains: it is the boiling cauldron of surplus Arab revenues whose movement across the exchanges recalls the grim scale of postwar reparations themselves. The Government must either tax at home or borrow abroad for this buying into present licences that is proposed.
However on what security? Little gilt remains on the gilt-edged guarantee of a Government which is prepared retrospectively to force renegotiation upon existing licences. The very renegotiation is about as damaging to the Government's credit as could be imagined. It is about as intelligent as a man sitting on a branch of a tree which he is trying to saw off.
If, therefore, the Government's covenant is not sufficient for raising further funds—and great funds—overseas, what else? Surely nothing less than a lien on the oil revenues of the future guaranteed by the European Economic Community. But again, on what terms? On what terms could we expect—could anyone expect—the Economic Community, under whatever guise, to guarantee or underwrite some loan to this country from an Arab or another source? The only security that France and Germany want, and the only security that they would pay for, is sovereignty over the mineral rights of the British Continental shelf, once described so vividly, prudently, wisely and rightly by my noble friend as, "British, and that's that." Sovereignty over those rights is what they want, with consent to the Community's claims that these do indeed belong to the Community.
The Fifth Report of your Lordships' own Select Committee on the European Communities last week warned the House urgently about the European Commission's energy proposals. The Report said bluntly: "Britain has the energy resources, Europe wants them". The Commission want and have recommended to the Council that an autonomous community agency be set up to command all energy supplies, reaching out the tentacles of its power over our own indigenous, if as yet unmined, wealth. This is what France and Germany covet. Here is the critical component in any loan involving European guarantees or any loan involving

2257
other monies secured on a European guarantee once we have blown our credit by attacking, as it were in retrospect licences that have been honourably negotiated and fully given.
The endeavour to "renegotiate" (in the current phrase), the endeavour to persuade present licence holders drastically to revise the terms on which those licences were given, even at the cost of buying out a great part of their costs, blows the whole Government policy sky high for the very reason that it could only be carried out at the price of alienating the sovereignty of the very mineral resources on which we and the Government count for our future rescue.
So much for that. I take this opportunity of putting to the Government some questions about their oil policy of which I have given private notice and in the light of which I hope we may have some instructive answers before we part tonight. How much do the Government in fact plan to invest in buying into the present discoveries? What, in their own words, would be a "suitable" return on the oil companies' capital already invested? I Would the Government help to carry the cost of exploration unsuccessful up to now? Would the tax legislation that they have forecast be flexible enough to differentiate between oilfields that give differing rates of return? What do the National Coal Board and what do the gas industry say to the Government proposal that their off-shore interests should be absorbed by the British National Oil Corporation with consequent loss of revenue to those nationalised industries? Finally, how would the British National Oil Corporation attract experienced staff except by outbidding the oil companies themselves?
These questions are put in a constructive spirit, because I believe that the carried interest programme is worth while; I believe that we could make it stick if both Parties adopted it, and I hope that my Party will come round to a more favourable view of it. The Government's policy may seem to give exaggerated importance to the appearance of things. The 51 per cent. magic is a case in point. Their present approach neglects reality. Indeed, to bludgeon their way into present licences could ruin the very policy that they are propounding. But, having said that, this is no good
2258
reason why we on our side of the House should be so blinded by rhetoric, whether it be their's or our own, as to pass up the opportunity now before us to contrive to bipartisan approach to future licences on the carried interest basis.
There has been, as I said at the start of my speech, one theme throughout this debate. It has been common to speeches from every quarter of the House. That theme has been unity of purpose coupled with the slogan: Tell the people the truth! The truth of the matter where oil is concerned is that we must make common cause for the benefit of all. That has to be said over and over again. The one thing we cannot afford for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and civilisation around us, is to make the muddle of oil that between the Parties we have managed to make of steel.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said so truly that politicians have become a debased currency. He referred to the language of Billingsgate which I adapt in this context: the language of Billingsgate is hardly the language of truth. So let partial affections be gone, let petty spite and Party pride and vain slogans be gone. There is in this matter a serious basis for lasting unity, and I would only echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in his speech—let us keep that flag up there!
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes his speech, may I ask whether he would agree that the present policy put forward is a suitable bipartisan policy because it affords the opportunity of combining the national interest and national control with the activities of the private companies concerned?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, whom I count as a personal friend, for that question. I believe that the outlined policy proposed could perfectly well form the basis of a bipartisan policy for future licences, but to apply it retrospectively to present licences would destroy that policy entirely and for ever.
9.4 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I have listened to most of the speeches during this interesting debate in which moderation has been the keynote. I have also

2259
listened to the interesting maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Lee of Newton. While we may hear the expression of moderate opinions, the public outside are themselves expressing an amazing variety of views which extend from the banner headlines of one of the mass circulation newspapers, "Is This Country Going Bust?", to those who say, as has been suggested in the debate to-day, that this is really a media-manipulated crisis.
There are those who say—and it has been said in this debate from many sides to-day—that as a nation we are undoubtedly living beyond our means, that we are living on credit and perhaps also on borrowed time. There are others who say we can go on living with the official bromides in the belief the I.M.F. will see us through if we soldier on until 1976 and all that. Also, the economists—I do not mean those in this House, and I always listen to noble Lords with the greatest interest—who appear from time to time on television are becoming tremendously contradictory to the public at large. Some of them re-echo what has been said, that we have not been told all the facts, or are not being told all the facts. Others are beginning to wonder, as has been expressed in many quarters in this debate to-day, whether Party Government in what lies ahead will suffice to deal with these problems.
Mr. Roy Jenkins, in his weekend speech, said that a Coalition is irrelevant. But there are some critics who express the view that the hustings, if we go to them, are irrelevant; and there are some who believe that there will not be an Election in the autumn. They believe that it will not take place because the economic typhoon is nearer, that the inexorable march of events will take charge, and that while we are doing Party broadcasts if we have an Election, the newsreaders will be reporting the daily news of the economic storm.
I heard recently on television a far more brutal view than that. One commentator said: "This is a short caretaker Parliament; a short caretaker Opposition and a short caretaker Government. Events in the not too distant future will call for all-round changes and sacrifices". He added that this country in its industrial activities is beginning to
2260
look run down, and that a Government of national concentration, which has been advocated from many quarters in this House during the debate, may be too late to save our standard of life. This was a critic speaking, and I wonder whether those words are false or true or just complete cynicism. But these are the cross currents which we have to expect in a free democracy.
I could understand if the Prime Minister announced a national plan or a national programme and invited the support of everyone of good will; because, as has been referred to to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and others, the key to our survival, certainly the key to our renaissance, is the single word "confidence"; and without it our international trade will become difficult. But maybe we have had the revolution in this country without noticing that it was happening and that the egalitarian society is really here. If that is true—and it may be—unless we produce more, have higher productivity for higher rewards, with an élite in technology and science, we shall be far worse off as a nation.
Quite frankly, the February Budget certainly did not help the confidence of what the Lord Privy Seal referred to today as middle management, on whom we vitally depend in the great run of industry in this country. It certainly did not help incentive schemes of the workers and of the staff who entered into these arrangements in good heart and in full belief of what it would bring them. Without their co-operation, without the full incentive and co-operation of middle management in this country, we just cannot get off the ground.
In Germany, France, the United States of America and other countries, by law or otherwise, they have workers' management and full board co-operation. Unless in the industry of this country, upon which we absolutely depend for our standard of living, we can deal with this communication void which exists, then waiting in the wings is that odd figure which is called "a holiday from growth". Some people might say, "No more plant; no more machinery; no more modernisation of plant. Let us sit down and enjoy what we have and be satisfied". This view, which may have begun in Brussels

2261
in the Economic Community among the Commissioners and their staff, has been spreading. With our international trading requirements, if we adopted a policy of: "Sit back. Let's take it easy and have a holiday from growth", it would mean a standstill in the social services of the United Kingdom. We must quite simply produce more in order to export more and reduce our national overhead expenses, or inflation will be the most serious problem this country has ever had to face.
My Lords, I am not a pessimist about the future, but as so many speakers have indicated in this debate we have to be realistic about this situation. I remember that in 1930 the Government appointed three Ministers as an economic triumvirate. I am not so sure they were very successful, but maybe if we have to deal with multiplication inflation something of the kind will be necessary in this country. As I have said, I should like to see the Prime Minister appear on television and tell the people of this country now—not at an Election but now—the full, frank, brutal facts of our situation and the inflationary position in this country. Because if we understand it, if we are told and if it is made understandable to every home so that everybody knows exactly what inflation means, which I do not believe is so now, then I still think that we can win through. But, my Lords, without that we may have to face the worst of all worlds: depression and inflation, in which, as Mr. Winston Churchill once said, the inevitable march of events would take charge.
9.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it is always difficult for someone who believes that the economy is verging on the catastrophic to avoid being accused of scaremongering. It is, indeed, equally difficult for that person not to spell out the situation as he sees it, because if by any chance he is proved to be right he can then be accused of complacency. I happen to believe that our economy is verging on the catastrophic. Luckily, I hold no position of great responsibility, so I can say what I think. In the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s, whenever Europe went into a mini-recession the United States and Japan went into a mini-boom, and so the world economic situation tended to balance itself out. In the first half of this
2262
year, the output of the seven largest countries in the world fell by a yearly rate of 1½ per cent. In the first quarter of this year the gross national product of the United States of America fell at an annual rate of 7 per cent.
Experts thought that it would stop falling by March. It did not. Japan's inflation and balance of payments problem is worse than ours. In Italy they have run out of coins, so one is reduced to the lowest common unit of currency—a 6s. 8d. note. In England annual inflation is running at the level of 22 per cent. This evening the Stock Market is valued at less than two and a half times the sterling value of what it was in 1931. Unemployment is rising. It is more profitable to lend to a local authority at 15 per cent. than it is to invest in new machinery.
There are a great many more signs that the world's—as well as Britain's—economies are in a very unhealthy condition. In The Times to-day there was a report that America's grain harvest forecasts of earlier this year were too high. This is bound to push up the cost of food, or lower our standard of living, or both. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in his opening remarks, we have paid ourselves too much since the war. This may be because, at the end of the war, having saved civilisation, we said, "Thank God that is over", whereas other countries—Germany, Japan, France, Italy and Central Europe—thought, "We have not done terribly well. We must pull our socks up and redeem ourselves, because it has been a great psychological disaster for us".
When, and if, the next Election comes, I hope that neither Party will go to the country offering more "goodies". As the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, has said, I hope that all Parties will spell out to the British public that our standard of living will have to fall. The Health Service is reputedly in need of £500 million a year. The universities have had to cut down on their student intake, because the money in the five-year cycle is running short after two years. This, my Lords, is a reduction in our standard of living.
What we are seeing now are schisms in our society, exacerbated by the political outpourings of Mr. Healey with his, "Soak the rich". In spite of the noble

2263
defence by the noble Lord, Lord Bes-wick and the outpourings of the erstwhile second Viscount, Lord Stansgate, this division is furthered by the hatred put out by the Left—although Mr. Jenkins, when he makes remarks, makes sensible and brave ones. The division is made worse by the totally unjustifiable moneys which are made by some people in the property market. It is made worse by the irresponsible City fortunes which are made by making money go round in a very fast circle, most of which sticks to the fingers of the top spinners in return for no perceptible benefit to the community.
This division is made worse by the statement which was made the other day by Mr. Len Murray—which I hope was out of character—when he was speaking of your Lordships' House. It is made worse by the activities of that lady whom Bernard Levin described as "The lady with the sawedged bedpan". The division is made worst of all by the perfectly natural "looking after oneself only" attitude (the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, put it so well) when faced by the obvious problem of rising prices whose causes are understood by so few people; and those few people tend to advocate different solutions.
In this situation we must explain with-out rancour and demand sacrifices of everybody—and when I say "everybody" I say that the better-off must obviously make much bigger sacrifices than the worse-off. Above all, we must refrain from class warfare. The argument against nationalisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, has benefited nobody, and it is terribly weakened by the history of the motor-cycle industry. Fifteen years ago, Britain dominated the motor-cycle industry. Now the right honourable Anthony Wedgwood Benn gives a large sum of money to a workers' co-operative. This is all that is left of a once-dominant industry. Management must do a lot better than that to create the wealth which we rightly demand.
There is a terrible danger not only of hyper-inflation; there is a terrible danger of mass unemployment—men and women, valuable citizens, hard-working citizens, people who are the victims of things which are outside their control. World commodity prices are static,
2264
possibly falling. Now the main reason for our inflation is wage/cost push. If we can have a wages policy then, with luck, our prices will hold. If the large battalions can push through anything they want because Governments and people have a hatred of confrontation and battle, then as the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, has said, in a speech which I think we all admired, the low paid will suffer and become unemployed. Massive unearned wage increases will cause hyper-inflation.
Can the recent award to ASLEF really be justified? Is it now more difficult to drive a train than it was in the days of steam, so justifying higher differentials? Our society cannot stand hyper-inflation and mass unemployment. The world about us is in a great mess. We are less in control of our own economy than before: perhaps so much out of control that we might, as the Economist suggested last week, have to surrender control (or possibly lack of it) over a small economy in return for a real share of control over a bigger European economy. Because our control is so much less than it was, therefore our economic management must be very much more clever than it has been in the past.
Thus, I urge Her Majesty's present advisers to worry about the less well off and not about the rich. I urge them, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, did, to avoid dogma. Will he also urge that on the right honourable Anthony Wedgwood Benn? I urge them to be conciliatory to all sections of the community. I urge them to give encouragement to the creation of wealth by encouraging companies and giving them confidence. I urge them to discourage the notion that we can go on increasing our standards of living as matter of a right and without effort. I urge them to go as much as they can for growth. If they can be seen to be doing those things then they might win the next Election. I myself would prefer them to get the economy right, which they will not do by listening to the rantings of their Left Wing, and to win the next Election, than get the economy totally wrong and in so doing destroy our society.
9.23 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I have listened to nine-tenths of the speeches to-day and I feel I must have some reward. I had

2265
hoped to confine my remarks to about ten or twelve minutes, but if I take one or two more I think that will be a reward for my patience. First, because it is such a long time ago since my two noble friends—the noble Lords, Lord Lee of Newton, and Lord Gordon-Walker—made their maiden speeches, may I remind them that they did make their maiden speeches earlier to-day and, even although all these hours have gone by, we still want to add our congratulations to them for speeches which were a credit to this House.
I did not like the last speech, that made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I thought it was just about the poorest I have listened to in the House to-day, and it rather ill becomes him to use language of vituperation and then say that we must forget all that and work together in harmony. If one wants people to work in harmony then one's efforts should be quite clear in the speeches one delivers. One cannot adopt language of that kind and then ask for co-operation; it just cannot be done. The noble Earl is a very good friend of mine. All I would say to him is that I only wish he had spent a few years in the other place, and all the rough edges would have departed by this time.
I rather liked the opening speech today, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, although I am bound to say that he is another—and I am not complaining too much about him—who says that we have to forget all these Party influences; that we must find a common ground on which we can work to solve our economic difficulties. But then what did he say? He then accused the Party to which I belong of attacking interest—people earning profits. That was the word he used—"profits". So far as I can remember, we have never objected to people earning profits. But we have a great objection to people getting profits without earning them. That is the great difficulty. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has quoted one case in the City of London, where by manipulating the figures somebody allowed £5 million to stick to his fingers. It is no good that type of person coming along and saying to the workers of the country, "You must put your backs into it." Of course there are faults on both sides. All I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington,
2266
is that if he wants co-operation he had better remember when making criticisms that there are faults on both sides. When one talks about a £5 million fault, this is rather a special fault on the side the noble Lord represents.
My Lords, I want to say just a word about nationalisation because in the future it will play perhaps an even larger part in the economy. What does not do it any good is using the argument that certain nationalised industries are not making great profits. Indeed, I challenge anyone in this House to say that if we had not taken coal, the railways, gas and electricity into public ownership, these industries would have been in existence to-day. There were no private applicants for them.
LORD FERRIER: Oh!
LORD HOY: It is no use the noble Lord saying, "Oh!" He know as well as I do that in the country from which he and I come, Scotland, we were absolutely depen dent on railways. He also knows that the considerable railway stock at that time never paid a penny in dividend so long as it was in the hands of private enterprise. That stock was only giving a dividend when it was taken over. When my noble friend Lord Shinwell nationalised the mines, the one complaint that many of us had—and I do not include myself—was that he was too generous with compensation. So all I say is that these industries, because they were absolutely essential for the economic well-being of the country, and private enterprise—
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, when I said "Oh," I was thinking of the electricity industry, in which I have a good deal of experience in another country. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that if electricity had not been nationalised, there would have been no industry. That is going a little too far. We would have had, electricity.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am even prepared to say that I went a little far. Obviously one had to have electricity, but my case is a much stronger one than has been put to the House.
I want to say a word or two about this uncertainty. Everyone in your Lordships' House to-day has said that one of the great troubles with our country at present

2267
is that there is uncertainty. Who is creating it? Party political manoeuvring does it. Two parties can play this game. But if Party politicians arc simply going to run each other down, they have no right to come here complaining if the public takes them at their own face value. When I think of the contribution that many people have made in this country without gain at all, I think we ought to be paying tribute to them. I can go back not too far, but I can go back to the days, even post-war, when I was paid £12 per week gross to represent a Parliamentary constituency and live in London and Edinburgh. While I can tell your Lordships that I do not think it was a great financial reward, let me tell the House that I loved it and would do it over again.
Even if we get into this argument about responsibility I do not think we earn great victories thereby. When we are always comparing ourselves with European countries to our own detriment, please let us remember that there are a great many countries which would not have been in existence to-day had it not been for the efforts of the British nation. Let us also remember that we exhausted ourselves financially to save them, and following the war rendered tremendous financial assistance. Even to-day in defence burdens we carry a share much greater than we ought to carry. But if we are going to insist on this, do not let us pretend; or else let us make up our minds that we cannot go on doing it very much longer. But please do not say that these other people are doing so well and we are doing so badly. We are paying debts for a lot of people.
It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, saying to-day that this side of the House is now saying that we have to import 50 per cent. of our foodstuffs. He said, "I wish they had said that some time ago". My Lords, I was saying it years ago. There were two arguments I always made: that if the normal commercial industry of this country had had an output even half as good as the agricultural industry we could very nearly have solved our economic difficulties. But I said that in addition to that we always had to pay for at least 50 per cent. of our consumption because we had to import it. I never received much encouragement from honourable
2268
gentlemen in the other place who sat on the opposite side.
I have never sought to pretend that this was a burden that did not have to be carried. Of course it had to be carried, and I always sought to do it. But understanding all that, the noble Lord should not complain about us because, if he understood that, he should never have allowed his Parliamentary Leader to go to an Election saying that he could cut prices at a stroke. That is one of the things that could not be done. Indeed if the Conservative Party to-day is saying that this is one of the things they ought not to repeat, it will have my support.
I was a little astonished if I may say so—I have never had the pleasure or privilege of meeting the noble Lord—at a most peculiar statement made by Lord Kahn in the course of his speech. He said that if we had an "organised slump"—I hope I quote him correctly—it would be a "salutory lesson to the trade unions". I am putting this to the noble Lord so that there will be clarity about what he did say.
LORD KAHN: My Lords, if I may intervene, I talked about slumps "engineered" by the Government, not "organised".
LORD HOY: My Lords, with all due respects to the noble Lord, I must say that I find it difficult to differentiate between "engineered" and "organised". Even the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is convinced that my interpretation of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, is correct, and not his own. Surely we can never get into such a state that it is said that we ought to organise or engineer a slump in this country, with all the untold economic difficulties it would mean for every man, woman and child, simply to teach the trade unions a lesson. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, but, at the moment I am replying to what the noble Lord, Lord Khan, has now admitted he said. I am saying to the noble Lord, with a little kindness, that for his own sake I hope he will never repeat that statement again, either in your Lordships' House or anywhere else.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I want only to say, with the greatest respect, and speaking as one who has had many intellectual differences with the noble

2269
Lord, Lord Khan, in the course of 30 years' acquaintance, that I really do not believe that he meant the interpretation which the noble Lord is now putting on what he said.
LORD HOY: I do not know, my Lords. I cannot be fairer than to ask the noble Lord, Lord Khan, what he said, and he has already told me what he said. The only difference between the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and myself is that I understood what he said.
I want to make two further points. In a long number of years in the political arena, I have listened to many speeches by economists, and I have nothing against them; I am sure they play a useful function in life. But it is rather extraordinary, after having had all these decades of advice, that the country finds itself in the position it is in to-night. I have no doubt that in a few years' time we will have yet another economic theory to take us out of the difficulties which will lie five years ahead. There is not a simple answer.
If people are to be taken out of their difficulties, there is one thing we all have to do and that is work. It may not be a very nice word, but I can tell your Lordships that that is the solution. It is no use seeking to claim a bigger share of a cake unless you can increase the size of the cake, and that will be done by work and by employment. One of the things one has to contend with is the fact that if you are going to ask the workers of this country to put their backs into it, then you ought to give them an assurance that there will be work available for them.
In Scotland during all these years of Conservative Governments—and I merely point this out for statistical reasons—we have never had less than 100,000 unemployed people. There is not very much use in saying to them, "You have to put your backs into it and get on the success road that work will provide", if you cannot provide the jobs for them. So it must always be the job of society and of Government, in particular, so to organise the economic affairs of this country that employment is available for those who want to work, to allow them to make their contribution. I am certain it can be done, given the right lead.
2270
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I would not regard it as a policy. I am not looking for Rights, Lefts, or what is now regarded as centre Party or some moderate Party, or something else in the middle. What I am looking for is common sense. That is the simple answer. I am sure the noble Lord has no objection. If we can get it instilled into people, that this is the contribution we all have to make if our country is to be successful, then the difficulties will diminish considerably.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I believe he misquoted Mr. Heath. Respecting as I do the noble Lord's power of repartee, I hesitate to say that Mr. Heanth never said he would cut the rise in prices at a stroke. He said he would cut the rate of the rise in prices at a stroke.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that that explanation is just about as good as the one I had earlier on economic affairs.
9.30 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I am a "jumper" and I apologise for it. The reason I am a "jumper" is that there are a few words I would say that have not been said before, which is extraordinary in such a long debate. They come from personal knowledge. As I think many people know, I have no tail. I live in the Isle of Man and I am very happy there. I run a pub, I am a publican and that is all. I live in the hole in the hollow in the hills, and I have an enormous number of tourists coming to visit me. They start off in the T.T. week or before. We have been packed out the whole season. In the evening I run a sort of night club; I am the compere and I tell a few stories, and we have a Romany musician.
Very often people ask me to their table for a drink and we sit and talk. I am talking to people all day long; they come and talk to me. They come from every part of the country that you can think of, apart from quite a lot of foreigners. My knowledge of good language is not very great, but I struggle with it. I hear their views. These are T.T. riders, followers of the T.T. races, the most wonderful people in the country. They really are marvellous, as are their wonderful girl friends who help them. They come from all over the country.

2271
I keep hearing, "What is that?" and, "Oh, that is the Somerset accent". Different people from all over, and naturally they have been talking about the Election, and politicians.
I get a very good idea of what they think. I do not mention politicians' names. I do not think that a Cross-Bencher should. They come from somewhere else, they come from down the passage or somewhere, and I do not know much about them, but I hear what people say and what their opinion is. It started with the gentleman who the French rather aptly called "Tricky Nickie". They suddenly stopped to believe that any politician is honest. They do not believe that politicians are honest. Name after name is put forward in arguments when they are all free and can talk, and they do not believe in politicians any more. They do not think that they can do the country any good. We are going to have, when we have it, a very funny Election indeed. I do not know what will happen. I am not going to guess. But I know that the general public do not believe or trust politicians any more. I do not know why not, because I think that they are charming people. But that is the truth, and that is all I have to say.
9.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that we are all agreed that it is a good time to discuss the subject matter of this debate. Certainly, no one has disputed today that we are faced by an economic situation which presents problems which are simply not in the traditional textbooks at all. We are faced with a prospect of inflation such as threatens seriously to undermine our existing standards of living, and which incidentally we cannot control inside this country at all.
There is an extra element which has only been mentioned by one or two noble Lords, which it is disagreeable of me to introduce but which, nevertheless, is a very real fact of life which I do not pretend to try to ignore. In addition to those problems, we are confronted by the very real attempt to achieve by unconstitutional methods a violent lurch in this country towards Marxism, which is a move strongly supported by a group in Parliament who claim that this is the pure doctrine to which the Labour Party are
2272
committed. If noble Lords have not mentioned this today, I am sorry, but I think it is time that we started to talk about it. I cannot disentangle these economic and political strands, although I may be rather more constructive at the end of my speech.
A NOBLE LORD: I hope so.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, I will be, but we might as well face up to the realities. I do not, as I understand economic theory, believe that the textbooks, the Keynesian economic theory, or Treasury orthodoxy, or whatever it is, allow one to have at one and the same time roaring inflation and a very real threat of recession, but the latter is the only unpalatable fact that the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was prepared to concede in his mini-Budget effort of last week whereby he attempted to stave off, at least for a little while, the threat of unemployment. Otherwise, his Budget has been dismissed as a fleabite, something, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, which will probably be forgotten as soon as Parliament rises. But let us at least welcome that it was an attempt, even if it was a small one, to do something about inflation.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, in his maiden speech, which we much admired and enjoyed, should happen to have picked upon the question of relief for ratepayers, because apparently the Treasury did not discuss this matter with the town hall treasurers, who say that the sums cannot be done, and that if they had been consulted they would have had to say that nothing can happen, in some cases at least, until the new year. At any rate, we recognise the gesture in the right direction. There can be no doubt about inflation. Let anybody go into a shop and they will see. It is again significant that the Chancellor has claimed for his latest Budget that it cancels out, as I understand it, all but 0·15 per cent. of the inflationary effect of the Budget that he introduced in March. Again let us applaud that. Of course, this is not a matter altogether of domestic management, particularly when we deal with oil supplies, which has been mentioned to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I accept that this is not, as I said, entirely within the control of any Government in this country.

2273
However, if we are to pay for more expensive imports, even if commodity prices are now stabilising, then we need to use all our endeavours to export, despite a slackening world trade; we need to use all our endeavours to attract money and investment from abroad and at home. In those circumstances, just for a moment in terms of overseas policies, what have the Government done? They have attempted to renegotiate a relationship with Europe which leaves the Europeans shrugging their shoulders over the efforts we have made, whether it is of the present Government or indeed of others, to solve a chronic problem in this country. But much worse, it leaves the Europeans waiting to see whether or not we will be a working partner in Europe, a subject which inevitably splits the Cabinet right down the middle.
Again we are being faced at the moment by threats of wide-ranging nationalisation of industry in this country, or Left-Wing control which is guaranteed,—if the Party opposite does not like this then I am sorry—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: That is not true.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It may not be true, but I will appeal to noble Lords in a moment to say whether it is or is not true. If these threats are true and they are widespread they are guaranteed to scare off any thoughts of investment by people from overseas who reap the benefits of the high commodity prices which we are paying. That kind of foreign investment is good for the industry concerned and for our balance of payments on which there is no room for complacency. It is good for the stability of our currency on which all our goods and our livelihood depend.
Against that background we have this third wild Left-Wing fringe element, of a wild and immensely dangerous nature. Because there are no noble Lords in this House who happen to agree with this cr who happen to have made speeches on this subject to-day does not prevent anybody recognising the fact that there are right honourable and honourable Members in another place who believe passionately in this approach.
LORD BESWICK: Before the noble Viscount leaves that point, will he do
2274
something to answer the case that I tried to make, that investment had been inadequate before we had this so-called Marxist plot in the present Government?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if I am allowed to develop my speech I will attempt to do so. What I am saying is something which I think is in common with other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, himself said so, as did the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, that if we are to proceed at all we need commercial and industrial stability and confidence. It is the prerequisite for exports and for growth in this country.
LORD BESWICK: That is right, but would the noble Lord please address himself to the question which I put; namely, that we did not have this required stability before the advent of the present Government?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The three-day week.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If people are going to talk about th three-day week—
LORD SHEPHERD: No, over a period of time.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Very well, over a period of time. If we failed in this no doubt we are subject to criticism. I will accept criticism. But let us not now run away from the fact that there is another block upon investment which we ought now to attempt to deal with. If noble Lords want truth and honesty, I cannot do better than that, and I now address myself to the rest of my speech.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Viscount must recognise, because it really is a point that we have to settle, that the old method of directing investment did not produce results. Because someone tries to find a new technique, why should they be dismissed as Marxist plotters?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very interested. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has at last recognised that we have a new technique placed before the country which has so far, I think, not been mentioned very much this afternoon. Let us by all means

2275
discuss it; but if the noble Lord criticises the old, I am going to criticise the new—and I now proceed to do so. My Lords, if there is no successful incentive to investment there will be no economic activity. Nobody will make things, nobody will buy things, nobody will sell things, build things or invent things, and industry will not have the secure prospect that it needs.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that his Leader in another place, in a speech in the City, said that every possible avenue for investment in industry had been explored, but that industry had failed? Could the noble Viscount direct his mind to that, and give us an explanation as to what were the consequences of it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think that I can go into the details of this, but what I understand is that the solution put forward by noble Lords opposite is that we should not seek to have investment from private resources, whether at home or overseas, but that we should take the thing over. I say that this is not the way to cure the situation.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, listen to what people in the Party opposite have said. I have listened to them.
LORD HOY: The noble Viscount said "noble Lords opposite".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Noble Lords opposite and their friends and their right honourable friends.
LORD HOY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, he said—
LORD CARRINGTON: Let my noble friend get on with his speech.
LORD HOY: I am willing to let him get on with it, but it was the noble Viscount himself who said, "noble Lords opposite said". All I am asking him is to produce the proof of it in the course of his speech.
LORD CARRINGTON: For goodness sake, let him make his speech!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: What I believe is that there is a claim
2276
that there is a Labour Party, and I believe that noble Lords opposite are likely to agree to some extent with Members of another place in the things that they say. We have heard rather too little of some of the things that Members in another place—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Viscount—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BESWICK: I am in order, my Lords. Would the noble Viscount be good enough to give one example of one person, either in this House or in another place, who has said that they did not wish for private investment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords; and that is exactly the point that I am trying to make.
LORD CARRINGTON: Let him make it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: What I am saying is that there is a dichotomy in the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong. There are indeed people in the Party opposite who say that; there are others who may say it but whose actions belie what they say. Let us just look for a moment at the things that have been said. I listened to the honourable lady the Member for Coventry South-West. The other day she said:
"In industrial relations the strength lies with the employer."
Directly after that she said:
"I cannot believe that the Party of the employers "—
that is, my friends—I am not going to give way yet.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not going to give way in the middle of a sentence. I will give way at the end of it. The other sentence I wanted to quote was this. She said—
LORD SHEPHERD: Who?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There has been such a lot of interruption that the noble Lord has forgotten. It is the honourable lady the Member for Coventry. South-West.
LORD SHEPHERD: What is her name?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could I intervene, as Leader? I think that the noble Viscount is making a provocative speech, but if he is not prepared to give way then clearly my noble friend ought to resume his seat.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am fully aware of the Rules of both Houses of Parliament. This is not a quotation from what was said in another place. It was said on the wireless and I propose to quote it, and when I have done so I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. She said this—
LORD HOY: At what time?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it was on the B.B.C. at 1.25 on July 13, 1974, and her majority is 513 for the constituency of Coventry, Southwest. She said, "I just cannot believe that the Party of the employers"—that is, my noble friends on these Benches—"can have at heart the interests of the individual worker." That is a charge and a point about which I feel very strongly and one to which I wish to return later. Now, the noble Lord may interrupt me.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Viscount could have saved time. I was simply going to ask if the noble Viscount was quoting from another place. If so, of course he would have been out of order.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am, I hope, cognisant of the Rules of this House. On the wireless to-day—and I think that it was at about 8.45, or possibly a little before—Mr. Mikardo, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, said that Mr. Jenkins is an extremist.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Doing well for the General Election!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS My Lords, I have every intention of continuing to do so. The right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for Employment, said, again not in Parliament although in this case I could quote
2278
him, that he is in favour of a mixed economy but with a very different mix from now. My Lords, those who remember the Attlee Government and who took part in industry at that time, for all their disagreement with the Socialist proposals of those days which I think they considered doctrinaire, frustrating and lacking in comprehension, saw one mitigating factor: that was that Ministers in those days were straightforward and honest. I am afraid that they look back today with some nostalgia to that time because not only, as we have heard this afternoon, has the Chancellor's new mini-Budget done nothing, for all his protestations about the need for investment, to help the capital market, but he has added an extra dimension—and this is the tragedy. For the first time, there has been exhibited—and I am afraid to say, with some degree of exultation—a spite and malice and envy which is repellant to behold. It saps confidence. It saps all desire to co-operate. When you talk about making pips squeak, you must remember that when they are crushed they will no longer provide the basis for a sound crop and for a bountiful fruit upon which alone everybody agrees this country will depend in the future.
My Lords, I have no time to go into full details of the disaster of these threats of nationalisation. I should like to make a speech about the nationalisation of development value and I think it would be a very good idea yet again to talk about North Sea oil, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. But, if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, really thinks that the present Government have dealt with the spiral of increase in land prices, I must take him aside on some other occasion and tell him what is happening.
Who can quote any nationalised industry today in existence which has these three qualities: which first of all gives a personal—and I emphasise "personal"—service which is even approximately acceptable to the consumer, is also cheap and efficient—and why is it that the Post Office and electricity organisations have today come up with another deficit of £391 million?—and does not come back time and time again for more subsidies or write-offs at the expense of the taxpayer? The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that all those were industries

2279
which would never have continued if they had not been taken over. Let us know which are the other dead-end industries which are to be taken over and which will end up in the same situation, because this is the pattern that we do not wish to see extended into the private sector.
LORD HOY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount wants me to answer, then let him say so. If he is half as clever as he is pretending to be, then he will know them himself.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, many noble Lords have been waiting for a long time for the list and we are still disappointed. But there is one other point. I have a nasty suspicion that some of those who work in the industries that might be taken over have a feeling that it would not be so bad if their industries were nationalised. They say to themselves, perhaps, "At least our jobs will be secure." Very well, my Lords, secure they may be, but there are other disadvantages. Will they like the red tape? Will they like the remoteness? Will they like the frustration? Have noble Lords tried dealing with the Gas Board and the Electricity Councils as ordinary members of the public? Would they like to live on the other side of the table? Will those employees also remember how long it will be before their salaries are put up as inflation gallops ahead? It is always upon the nationalised industries under public control that the dead hand of the Treasury falls, and they are always at the end of the queue. People who think that they will secure their jobs as a result of nationalisation should, if they take my advice, beware.
I have spoken somewhat harshly, I agree, because I believe it needs to be said, of an apparent carelessness of the Government about our position here, and in the eyes of the world. I have mentioned some of the activities of what I believe to be a dangerous group both inside and outside Parliament. People will say, perhaps, that surely with this pressure from the Left, from the unions, it is the Labour Party which is the most likely to keep control, and perhaps in a slightly different context the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, was advancing the cause of the Labour Party as being the most likely to deal with our current troubles. I ask
2280
people to think about this point and I merely echo, if I do not endorse, what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said by way of a somewhat sterile recrimination about the past. If we are to give up a statutory incomes policy, which is now rejected, though I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, did not condemn this, and if people are going to say that confrontation was tried and failed and brought the Government down, then we have only the social contract left. I believe that that is what the present Government are depending upon, and it is the only thing that they are depending upon.
Of this last assertion, that that is all that is left, this autumn will be the acid test. Goodness knows, the Government have passed such measures as they could get through Parliament and have promised others that they could not get through Parliament, to appease almost any trade union. If, in return, we get wildly inflationary wage claims in the autumn as the only response, then we must look critically, not at the idea of the social contract—because I now want to get this speech on to a constructive basis—but at the ability of this Government, or indeed of any Government, Labour Government, to work it. If that happens they will have failed, and rather worse than that, because according to some of the adherents of the Labour Party the full terms of the social contract, if they are to be implemented by Labour, also, involve a fundamental change in our politics and in our economy, which I believe very few people in this country are prepared to accept. So we think that if there is to be a social contract it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Labour Party is the hand that ought to hold the pen that signs it.
But I see no reason, if other methods have been discredited or are at the present moment out of fashion, why we should not try a social contract if we can get certain things straight before we set about it. It has to have the agreement of all of us, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, because after all it affects all of us. It is not an agreement between militant unions and either an important or a Left-Wing Government. It is an agreement between all of us and it must be written within the control of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of

2281
Handsworth, and my noble friend Lord Alport have said.
I believe that I may attract their acceptance of this idea. It must command such wide acceptance, I would say, as to preempt both Left-Wing militancy and also now, as we discover, the possibility of some Right-Wing groups coming in to impose a counter-solution in an equally unconstitutional fashion. It has got to pre-empt both those extremes. This means, I believe, that certain political groupings will have to shift and some compromise may have to be reached.
I have time to offer, I think, only one point on this matter. What is wrong with a greater degree of worker participation at board level in industry? Nothing. I do not mean worker control, I do not mean that we should confine this to the shop floor. I believe that middle management has just as much right to be heard as the people on the shop floor. But I also believe that there is a good deal that we can do in that direction as an example of something that I would be prepared to think about very seriously as part of a new social contract.
If the Government, at the present moment, seem to indicate that the only thing they care for is the interests of the trade union movement, then my Party must equally face any accusation or condemnation that it, too, defends and adheres to its traditional sectional and doctrinaire interests, and it has to shift as well. Compromise and moderation are matters about which many people have spoken to-day. Incidentally, I am astonished that there has not been one single contribution from the Liberal Benches in the whole of this debate. Surely they must think they have a part to play in this.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: What about coalition?
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment. It had been the intention of my noble friend Lord Byers to speak in this debate, but at a late hour he was prevented from so doing. We wondered whether to intervene but considered the subject to be of such importance as to mean that one should really give a little more thought to it than was possible this afternoon. I hope, however, that our presence at this late hour
2282
is an indication of the interest which the Liberal Party attach to this debate.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is the only Liberal Peer who is capable of dealing with this subject, and that there is nobody else. At any rate, whether that is so or not, let us face up to the fact that some of the points I have been making mean that on that side of the House and on this as well we may have to face up to some kind of ideological reappraisal, and if anybody thinks that will be painless or pleasant they are mistaken. I do not hold out any such promise.
What should we do? Can I take a moment to make some points which may be all too obvious. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, may think they have been said a thousand times before, but because they are simple I do not believe it necessarily follows that they should not be said again. Of course, I have no definitive answer. If I had, I should not be speaking from the Opposition Front Bench of the House of Lords. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton—and again, I should like to congratulate him and commend him for a very interesting maiden speech, even if it was not entirely uncontroversial—I should like to say a few words.
First, the country desperately wants a lead. If we are faced, as I believe we are, by the threat of some unconstitutional efforts to gain control, let us counter these by some well-tried constitutional means. I prefer this kind of approach to the kind of thing that has happened in the hospital world, an attempt by the unions concerned to take over in advance of Government decisions. Let us therefore use the various methods that we have at our disposal. At the Election, which I feel fairly sure we are about to have, let the people vote for moderation. I will not even prescribe where moderation is to be found, I will let the people read the manifestos and see for themselves.
But they may have some difficulties in certain constituencies, where the candidates for one Party or another—and I need not say which—are of a sufficiently extremist nature to make it doubtful whether they are likely to carry out any reasonable policy. There is this trouble

2283
about the Labour Party. It is riven down the middle at the moment. The only thing holding it together is the tracery sticking plaster that that marvellous cosmetic surgeon, the Prime Minister, has managed to stick over internecine wounds. Let the electors choose the candidates they want in the Labour Party and decide whether they are moderate or extreme. Let us also talk and participate. Whether it is a matter of electing people to a trade union committee, a constituency association or any politically orientated body, let them at least turn up, vote and decide who is to run their committee and be their candidate. It is no use wringing one's hands and refusing to take part in the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, and many others, suggested that we should work hard at our jobs. What is wrong with that? We should work conscientiously and hard, refusing to connive at those who fiddle, slack and skive. That would not be a bad thing to do; anybody can do that. Let us face up to the prospect of tightening our belts—not bad, incidentally, as my noble friend Lord Hawke said, for that tiresome phenomenon of the waistline. When have we so far had any prospectus from the present Government? We must prepare for this. People have not been fooled by what has been said or not said. To take a simple example, people have been planting vegetables in their gardens and allotments, I have seen people out picking fruit in the fields to preserve for the winter. They know what is going on; they are not deceived. This is something practical which the people can do. If the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, laughs, she will find that it might be advantageous for her to do that.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Viscount that I have dug potatoes and gathered fruit from the hedgerows for the past 25 years.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Baroness is lucky and is a wise person, and others are now following her example. These are good, simple British things which make sense; they are things in which everyone can play a part. What I am after is this. We should have a modification under some moderate system of all that vast majority
2284
who, whether by tradition they voted Tory, Liberal or Socialist, or anything else, believe in moderation. Nobody can ask for anything fairer than that. Their determination, if it can be mobilised, will help us to work and find our way out of the economic mess we have been talking about to-day. Their united contempt will put to rights the extremists, whether of the Left or Right, who are trying to manipulate our present difficulties in order to implement an odious, extremist idea of whatever variety it may be. That is what we should think about over the summer holidays, and what ought to come out of this debate.
10.14 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate my noble friends Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Lee of Newton on their maiden speeches. They come to us with considerable Parliamentary experience and I am sure they will bring great benefits to this House. One theme that has run through this debate has been that the time has come when the Parties should tell the people the truth. I think the last speaker showed that there are many sides of truth. I wondered which side we had to tell. I would remind the House that this Administration has been in office for less than five months, and we are expected to have carried out miracles in that short time. Our financial policy during that five months has necessarily been focused upon the need for controlling a bout of inflation which is the most serious that this country has experienced in peace time; a bout of inflation which was initiated by the financial policies of the last Administration. Their deficiency budgeting was the highest we have ever had in peace time, and they matched their Budget deficiencies by printing paper money. There was never at any time a possibility that the growth that they were trying to stimulate would snowball to meet the demand which had been generated by their financial policy. That was the way in which the inflation was initiated.
However, by the end of last year it was not the main cause. The main cause of our inflation was the considerable increase in the prices of primary commodities. In the year to the end of the first quarter of 1974, primary commodity prices in terms of sterling values

2285
increased by 90 per cent.; and to a country which imports those primary commodities and exports manufactured goods that was a very serious matter. In the six months to February material costs, according to the Price Commission, were five times more important than labour costs in pushing up prices. That is the principal cause of our inflation. That is the problem that we must tackle. In June of this year we had for the first time a respite from increases in material costs. They actually fell. But even at the present time there are substantial increases in the costs of primary material prices which are still in the pipe-line, and it will take another several months before they get through the pipe-line. However, if these encouraging developments in commodity prices continue, we can expect an easing of inflationary pressures from this source.
What happens to wages is the key to controlling inflation in the coming period. It is our view that only a voluntary approach to wages, determined with the consent of the mass of working people, offers a way forward. We are engaged in a crucial experiment for the benefit of the nation as a whole. We have a right to some understanding and indeed to some moral support. We have that from some quarters of this House. By food subsidies, by the reduction in the value added tax, by rent control, by rates subsidies and the voluntary agreement negotiated with the retail trade, we expect that in the long run we have had an effect of up to 5 per cent on the Retail Price Index. In the short run this will minimise the threshold payments, which were introduced by the last Administration. In the long run we shall create the only possible climate which will discourage wage inflation.
The Trades Union Congress has made it clear that it stands for the maintenance of real incomes rather than improvement in incomes at the present juncture. It stands for the threshold payments that have already been made to be taken into account by negotiators. It stands for the normal 12-months interval between applications for wage increases. That is as far as one could expect the Trades Union Congress to go. If we are to get industrial peace in this country, whether we like it or not we shall have, sooner or later, to build up an adequate conciliation-arbitra-
2286
tion machinery. That is the only way in which we shall get sufficient confidence on the part of workers and on the part of management to encourage them to invest in industry. That confidence will come only if we show that the conciliation-arbitration machinery is independent.
May I go at least one step with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he says that we should use public opinion. I believe that public opinion ought to be used. I believe that if we had an acceptable conciliation and arbitration machinery, then, when a claim had gone through that machinery, the worker would still have the right to strike. Nobody can take that right away. However, the public would have a right to know what the arbitrators had said so that it could judge for itself who was right and who was wrong. It is in that sense that I believe there is a strong case for using public opinion as a means of pressure.
While the control of inflation has been, and remains, our central object of policy, we regard chronic unemployment as the worst of all economic diseases. It creates a loss in human values that cannot be measured in money and, for our part, we are not prepared to follow policies which will result in chronic unemployment. The control of inflation and full employment are interrelated in a very complex way. But they are not contradictions; nor is there any contradiction in pursuing a balanced policy which has both goals as its objective. However, where you are doing that, you have to keep your finger on the pulse and you cannot react only once a year at Budget time. You have to react much more quickly.
The recent July package is estimated to create between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs. Of course it will not reduce the unemployment figures by that amount, but it is estimated that the July package alone will reduce unemployment by 40,000 altogether. However, we are conscious of the fact that, while the rate of unemployment is 2·6 per cent. over the United Kingdom as a whole, it is 4·5 per cent. in the North, 40 per cent. in Scotland, 3·6 per cent. in Wales and 1·6 per cent. in the overheated South-East. It is for that reason that we have found that it is necessary to restore the regional employment premium to its original,

2287
real value. We are of the opinion that if it is employment which one wishes to encourage in the development areas, it is not sufficient to give capital grants. They will attract the capital-orientated industries; the capital-intensified industries will be encouraged. We want also to encourage the development areas industries which are labour-intensive.
It should also be borne in mind that in practice the people in the development areas—or certainly many of them—who are required to find new employment are people of 50 years or over. They are not people who can learn a new trade in the classroom. They are people who will learn it best in the workroom, and because they will learn it best in the workroom or the workshop the regional employment premium is perhaps one of the best ways of encouraging the retraining of the unemployed in the development area.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked a question on the construction industry. He complained that it was declining. I would point out to him that in March the Chancellor of the Exchequer set aside £350 million for housing, and since then £500 million in grants has been allocated for use by the building societies, and in the three months to the end of May there was an about-turn in the housing starts. There was actually an increase of 3 per cent., so that there are now signs of some recovery.
I would point out also that in the case of investment everything is not on the black side. On the question of liquidity, industry is taking up about two-thirds of the agreed ceilings for lending by the banks. There is one-third which has not been taken up. In the difficult first quarter of this year investment in manufacturing industry rose by 6½ per cent., which was quite unexpected, and, in fact, it was 11 per cent. over the 1973 average.
We also hope that the relaxation in dividend control will result in capital being moved from where it is not needed to where it is needed. I come now to some aspects of the balance of payments. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has asked a number of questions concerned with oil. In many of the cases it is not possible at the present time to give a firm answer, but an answer has been given to each of these questions, and where we
2288
could not give a firm answer we have stated why. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, since this covers two pages of typescript, if I might pass it to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, at the end of the debate.
LORD HOY: Put it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, my Lords.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, asked what was the effect of the July package upon imports. No figure is available, but it is admitted that in the short run there will inevitably be some effect on imports: imports will be increased. But in the judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the deflationary effects of the July package and the effect upon industrial costs will make our exports more competitive, and the exports ultimately gained will outweigh the immediate increase in imports.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was critical of the way in which the deficit on our balance of payments is being financed. The deficit is being financed mainly by the nationalised industries and local government borrowing from abroad the same kind of amounts which they would have had to borrow on the home market, and by and large they are receiving a gain of about 1 per cent.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt for a moment, is it to be understood that he regards it as definitely beneficial that these borrowings by the nationalised and other industries should be direct from overseas rather than by the conventional practice of borrowing through the Consolidated Fund?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, all the loans are vetted by the Bank of England, particularly in relation to their redemption dates, so as to get a spread-over. I think both the last Administration and the present Administration are satisfied with the arrangements. I would point out that the sum which has been borrowed in this way in order to finance the deficit in our balance of payments is 4·2 billion dollars since last March, and more than two-thirds of that was borrowed during the period of the last Administration.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Lord misses the point. The point I was

2289
trying to make was that it is much better if we borrowed through the Consolidated Fund, because if this money is borrowed from abroad it masks the extent of the borrowings, and necessarily builds up an adverse balance of payments through the subsequent servicing.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said, that both the previous Government and the present Government, who have access to inside information, came to their decision, and at least they are in agreement on this, I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, in the way in which he spoke earlier in the evening, was critical of our borrowing at all to finance the deficit. If so, I was going to ask him, what was the alternative? The alternative was presumably to let sterling decline. If one allowed sterling to decline, inevitably there would be a very great increase in the import prices we should have to pay. We should ultimately get rabid inflation, and that, no doubt, would be followed by controlled deflation and acute unemployment. That is the way to encourage militancy.
My Lords, what of the future? While I do not think we can be optimistic, neither do I think there is any need for us to be as pessimistic as some speakers have been this evening. I believe we are not at all badly geared for an export-led growth in the not too distant future. Our prices are competitive on the export market, and after the experience of the three-day week, I think we have more capacity than we thought we had. Our exports are at present rising; consequently, there is still some hope. But we have to succeed in two things. First of all—and here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek—we must discourage our trading partners from pursuing "beggar my neighbour" policies. We have to do that by way of example, because if the countries with whom we trade follow "beggar my neighbour" policies, we will become all the worse off because of our dependence on international trade.
The second thing we have to do is to use our capacity and keep our people at work. That means that we cannot under any circumstances have inflexible wage policies. We must have flexible wage policies, and must take all necessary steps
2290
not merely to keep people at work, and to avoid disputes, but also to avoid chronic unemployment, including unemployment in the development areas. These are the policies to which we are geared, and we believe that both in the short run and in the long run they will succeed.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I wonder if I may ask the noble Lord for one development of his most recent argument. I gathered from what he said earlier that he was more optimistic than some regarding the future rate of inflation. The question I want to ask him is: does this mean that Her Majesty's Government do not subscribe to the verdict of the O.E.C.D. Committee that prices may rise by 20 per cent. per annum?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I would not say that I am optimistic in regard to inflation. I am optimistic in this sense, that there are now signs of a halt in the rise in prices of raw materials, which has been the prime cause. But there are still some price rises of raw materials to go through the pipeline. I am also optimistic that we have taken the best possible action that was practical in the circumstances to try to avoid wage inflation. I do not think we could have taken any other action which would have been practical and more effective. Whether or not the O.E.C.D. are right, I believe we are doing the right thing. I would not say that I am optimistic, but I am not pessimistic. I believe, providing we can keep people at work and use our capacity, that we will expand our exports far more than most of the speakers in this debate have contemplated.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have a right of reply, and, my goodness, how I could reply! But I think we have had enough. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.

APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1974
10.37 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE) rose to move that the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Joint Committee met to-day and have reported on this Order, which now comes before your Lordships for consideration. I know that this House is, in general, precluded from making decisions on financial matters, but even so I think it might be helpful if I were to explain briefly the background to this Order. In March of this year, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a Consolidated Fund Measure which authorised the issue from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of amounts of £32,410,600 in respect of the 1973–74 Spring Supplementary Estimates approved by the Assembly, and £229,026,400 in respect of a Vote on account of the Estimates for Northern Ireland services for the current financial year. These amounts were not, however, appropriated to particular services, as it was the intention in accordance with the normal practice to appropriate them at the same time as the balance of the main Estimates. The main Estimates were in the process of being put to the Assembly at the time when the Assembly was prorogued.
The purpose of this Appropriation Order is two-fold. In the first place, it authorises the issue from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland of the balance of the total provision for the current year. Secondly, it authorises the appreciation of this sum, the Vote on Account and the Spring Supplementary Estimates for 1973–74. The total of the Northern Ireland Estimates for 1974–75 is some £618 million. This compares with a figure of £625 million for 1973–74, but about £65 million of that figure was in respect of law and order services which became the responsibility of Westminster under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The provision in this year's
2292
main Estimates therefore represents an increase of approximately £58 million on Estimates provision for 1973–74. Well over half of the increase, however, is attributable to the full year effect of local government reorganisation, as a result of which responsibility for certain major services such as education, roads, water and sewerage was transferred to central Government. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
10.41 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Order, and, as a result of that I have no questions to put to him. May I put one point, which is an important one, and I put it to him for the second or third time during this Session. In reply to the debate which was held on June 3 and 4 the noble Lord was good enough to tell the House that his right honourable friend would be considering how these Parliamentary Orders for Northern Ireland could be considered in Northern Ireland before they come to both Houses of Parliament. May I express the hope that this perhaps could be attended to during the Recess? During the prorogation of the Assembly it must surely be desirable for delegated legislation to be looked at in Northern Ireland before it comes to Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for putting this point once again to him.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State flew off this morning to far distant places, where I hope he will have a reasonable rest. When he comes back, this is one of the matters which will unquestionably exercise his attention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND WATER SPORTS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  GIBRALTAR: SERVICE LAND
  GIBRALTAR: SERVICE LAND
  FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS
  FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS
  LEGAL SERVICES AND LAW CENTRES
  LEGAL SERVICES AND LAW CENTRES
  COMPUTER STORED INFORMATION
  COMPUTER STORED INFORMATION
  U.K. EXPENDITURE AND E.E.C. BUDGET
  U.K. EXPENDITURE AND E.E.C. BUDGET
  LAW REFORM
  LAW REFORM