Sitting of 20 June 1974

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

  FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Sex Discrimination
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the publication of a White Paper outlining the manner in which he proposes to deal with the problems of sex discrimination in all its aspects.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Yes, Sir. I intend to publish a White Paper announcing my proposals for securing equal status for women.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an indication when the White Paper will be published, and will he give an assurance that the proposals outlined in it will be much more ambitious and comprehensive than those in the previous Government's White Paper?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am unable to give an absolutely definite time regarding publication, but I would think that it would be within a matter of two months or, at
    654
    the most, three months, and possibly during the recess. I certainly hope that the proposals will be comprehensive and reasonably ambitious.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend seen the early-day motion in my name and in the name of some of my hon. Friends? It is an all-party early-day motion. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on it?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to give some indication of what the early-day motion says.

    Death Certification and Coroners (Report)
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take with regard to the report of his Department's Committee on Death Certification and Coroners which was published in 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): We are considering the report, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement soon.
    Dr. Winstanley: Are there not at least two urgent matters arising from the report which require action? First, is it not time that we had some clarification of the law relating to death certification in cases involving human tissue transplants? Secondly, is it not high time that we curbed the activities of certain of Her Majesty's coroners, who appear frequently to ignore the coroners' rules, often causing unnecessary distress to bereaved persons?
    Dr. Summerskill: I agree that these are only two of the very important aspects of the report which are being considered. There were 114 recommendations in all, and different Government Departments are involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in the final stages of consultation.
    Mr. Waddington: May I remind the hon. Lady of the reply she gave to a Question from me on 2nd April? Will she remember that great distress can be caused to people as a result of the non-issue of death certificates? May I also

    655
    remind her of a case of a constituent of mine whose wife was killed by a hit-and-run driver? The constituent could not be furnished with a death certificate and for years and years was unable to get benefits from the insurance companies. This is a very urgent matter.
    Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate the urgency, but many of these recommendations are controversial. There is by no means unanimous agreement on them. It is important that we get some agreement between Departments.

    Police (Special Branch)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine ways in which Special Branch activities can, in total, be made publicly accountable without damaging the security needs of individual operations.
    Mrs. Colquhounasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine ways in which Special Branch activities can, in total, be made publicly accountable without damaging the security needs of individual operations.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Individual Special Branch officers are accountable for their actions in the same way as other police officers. I am ready to look into any general aspects which may concern hon. Members, although, as my hon. Friends recognise, individual operations must normally remain secret.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Most people are concerned that they have no idea of the range and scope of these activities, and they would like to know—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea how the public can tell what is the total expenditure on this sort of activity, year after year?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Special Branch represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total size of the police force. Although figures are not kept of exactly what percentage of cost this represents, since the overwhelming proportion of the cost represents pay and allowances I would
    656
    think that it was approximately the same proportion.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that with the increase in terrorism in this country it is essential to have a police intelligence organisation which can seek out terrorists before they strike? Does he not further agree that we rely heavily upon the Special Branch in this regard and that this is really no time for anyone to conduct a campaign against it?
    Mr. Jenkins: I agree that the Special Branch performs a most valuable service—possibly as valuable as, or even more valuable and necessary than, at any time since its inception 90 years ago. I do not think this is a reason why my hon. Friend or others should not ask Questions which they think it appropriate to ask. I shall always endeavour to provide hon. Members and the House generally with such information as I think proper. At the same time, I certainly think that we owe a considerable debt to the Special Branch.
    Mrs. Colquhoun: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? Does he accept that there is considerable public disquiet about the erosion of democracy and public accountability today? Will he do all that he can to ensure that at least Members of this House are kept informed?
    Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend's premise has possible interpretations in a number of different ways. As a broad statement, I accept it. I certainly accept that it is not only my desire but my duty to keep this House informed as far as I can.
    Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the two points raised in this Question are connected, namely, the importance of the Special Branch and the value of its work, and the desirability of opening it to public scrutiny, notwithstanding the need to protect individual operations? Does he recognise that in the past there has been a tendency to shroud it in secrecy, which is not in the interests of ensuring that there is public recognition of the work of the Special Branch?
    Mr. Jenkins: What is desirable, and what I have always endeavoured to do, and will endeavour to do in future, is not to shroud a perfectly reputable and

    657
    normal branch of the police organisation in any undesirable secrecy, which only arouses suspicion. At the same time, I recognise that there are bound to be certain operations which have to be conducted confidentially or not at all.
    Mr. Robert Taylor: Bearing in mind the many activities of the Special Branch, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet had the opportunity to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to posters which appeared in London in the early hours of this morning claiming that the police are responsible for the murder of the student who unfortunately died last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most important point? Is he aware that it is stated on the poster that there is to be another demonstration this weekend? Is he further aware that one of his hon. Friends is named in the Morning Star today as being the principal speaker at the demonstration planned for this coming Saturday? If the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has not been drawn to the poster may I rectify that omission herewith and show him it—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not do that at Question Time.
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think it requires the activities of the Special Branch, or even the hon. Gentleman's poster-waving activities, to inform me of this. I was informed of it this morning. I am aware of the circumstances and I take note of them. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman wished to put a certain question to me this afternoon on which it would not have been appropriate for me to take action, because under Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936, and any other powers, I have no power to initiate a ban, only to respond to such a request from the Commissioner of Police or the chief police officer in any other area. No such request has been received and it would certainly be inappropriate in such circumstances for me to take action such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
    Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give as much information as is consistent with security about the nature and scale of the work of the Special Branch.
    Mrs. Wiseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he is prepared to give relating to the nature and scale of the activities of the Special Branch.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police developed out of the Irish Bureau, set up in 1883 to deal with Fenian activity. Other forces in England and Wales now have their own Special Branches. Special Branch officers are police officers and are under the control of their chief officers, who are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the preservation of public order in their areas.
    Special Branches are mainly concerned with offences against the security of the State, with terrorist or subversive organisations, with certain protection duties, with keeping watch on seaports and airports and with making inquiries about aliens.
    Mr. Snape: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how he can possibly equate that reply with a report on the activities of the Special Branch concerning the taking of photographs of nurses demonstrating against their scandalously low pay? Will he also tell the House whether the Special Branch was sufficiently efficient last Saturday, in Red Lion Square, as to take the names and particulars of those members of the National Front who paraded in paramilitary uniform through the square, in direct contravention of the Public Order Act 1936?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Kent that no photographs were taken of the nurses' demonstration to which my hon. Friend refers. It is true, as is known, that Special Branch officers were present and that one, or perhaps more of them, had cameras. It is not outside the experience of most of my hon. Friends and Members of the House generally that demonstrations organised by the most reputable organisations, and begun with the most estimable of intentions, may be joined by those whose purposes are less benign. On this occasion no photographs were taken at all. As for the details of what happened on Saturday, I have already answered a Private Notice Question about that. If my hon. Friend likes to put down a Question dealing with the particular point he has in mind I shall endeavour to reply to it.
    Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that where possible members of the Special Branch are equipped with British equipment? In particular, will he make sure that unless there is a very good reason to the contrary they use the very successful Webley and Scott police revolver, which is widely used by police forces throughout the world?
    Mr. Jenkins: I congratulate the hon. Member upon having thought of a supplementary question which the Home Office—even with five Questions tabled dealing with the Special Branch—had not thought of. I cannot give him the specific assurance he asked for, but I will give him the general expression of my intention that whenever equipment is equally effective I hope that British equipment will be preferred.
    Mrs. Wise: Reverting to the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the nurses' demonstration, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what justification there was for the intervention of the Special Branch, which was widely reported in the Press, in the industrial dispute at Strachan's in Eastleigh?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Special Branch has no interest in intervening—and no power to intervene—in trade disputes as such. It has no interest in trade unions as such. It is interested only in subversion and possible subversion. Subversion can come from a variety of quarters. I think that it is most important that the Special Branch should be neutral in its attitude to differences between trade unions and employers, between the members of different political parties, and others. The Chief Constable of Hampshire had reason to believe that public disorder might have resulted from the incident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). I can assure the House that this in no way detracts from the fact that the Special Branch will, as long as I have any general responsibility for it, maintain a general attitude of neutrality to those engaged in legitimate disputes. It is concerned solely with the activities of individuals who undermine the democratic party régime and not with intervening in any way between those who take different views as to how this power shall be exercised.
    Sir K. Joseph: Although the Home Secretary is not responsible for the apparent campaign of some of his hon. Friends against both the police and the Special Branch—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible—is he aware that most hon. Members and most members of the public will think it extremely odd that Members of this House at a demonstration on Saturday will give implicit support to people who practise provocation and violence against the democracy and peace of this country?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to hold that point of view. I do not think that he or any other hon. Member will doubt my determination to uphold the legitimate powers of the police in all its aspects. The fact that these Questions have appeared together is not, in my view, part of a campaign. It is because there was a desire to put down certain other Questions which the Table Office, in its wisdom and without consultation with me—which would have been quite inappropriate—decided to regard as being out of order. That has resulted in their concentration on today's Order Paper. It is important that we preserve a balance, that we give the police our confidence and that we sustain them strongly in their proper activities, but that we do not say that hon. Members may not ask Questions which they think appropriate.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although he is personally responsible for the activities of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police it is his judgment and decision alone which should determine whether information sought by hon. Members which by its nature is secret should be supplied? Is that not a decision for the Home Secretary of the day and for no other authority?
    Mr. Jenkins: Clearly the House has to apply the established rules that have been developed. It is then for me to decide, when Questions are tabled, how much information I can give.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Home Secretary aware that his reply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the episode in my constituency and about the non-photography will give considerable comfort and support to the Kent

    661
    Police? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that there are many elements fomenting trouble against the police and that we look to him to continue to give the police proper support?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes. Certainly I shall endeavour to continue my proper support—and I attach equal importance to the adjective and the noun.
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the training of Special Branch officers is such as to ensure they do not encourage the collection of material on legitimate political groups.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is generally understood in the police service that Special Branch officers should not concern themselves with the political activities of individuals except to the extent required in connection with security and public order.
    Mr. Clemitson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reiterate his belief in the good faith of hon. Members on the Government side of the House and stress that what we are concerned about is the defence of the freedom of individuals and legitimate organisations?
    Mr. Jenkins: I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned, in their varying ways, with the freedom of the individual. I am sure that that applies to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Mather: Rather than holding public inquiries into the conduct of the police on such occasions as those that we have been discussing, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more to the point to hold a public inquiry into Communist-backed subversive organisations in this country, whether paramilitary or otherwise?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not really know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: Nor does the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jenkins: The only suggestion that I have under consideration for a public inquiry into the activities which I think the hon. Gentleman is describing is about what happened last Saturday,
    662
    which I told the House on Monday was proposed and welcomed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and which would be concerned equally with the activities of all those concerned in this regrettable incident.
    Mr. Loughlin: I accept my right hon. Friend's contention that we should do everything possible to support the police, Special Branch or otherwise, in ensuring the maintenance of law and order, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of concern in many quarters about some of the activities of the Special Branch? Cases have been enumerated of photographs being taken of innocent people who were simply going along a road where a meeting was taking place. Is my right hon. Friend aware, further, that the activities of the Special Branch in attending meetings and in taking photographs are giving a great deal of concern to people who are also concerned about the freedom of the individual?
    Mr. Jenkins: I would have no intention of forbidding the Special Branch to take photographs, even if I had that power. It is extremely valuable that photographs were taken of what took place in Kilburn High Road two weeks ago, for instance. It is very difficult to know who exactly is included in a photograph. We all have photograpths taken of ourselves when we hope that we are innocent and when we do not necessarily ask for the photographs to be taken. I am against any unreasonable use of the power of the camera by the Special Branch, but I am unconvinced—and I have denied specifically in one case which has been put to me that the camera ever was used—that it is used inappropriately.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if the public and Parliament are to be protected from terrorism it will be necessary to take more photographs, to tap more telephones, to open more letters and to recruit more informers, however disagreeable those activities may be?
    Mr. Jenkins: That is rather an extreme and general statement. My concern is that we should have as effective security as we can. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will achieve it by his generalised statements that we should do more of everything.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet ready to initiate an experimental scheme to monitor and control the incidence of shoplifting in supermarkets, in accordance with the proposals made to him by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington; and if he would make a statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: My noble Friend, the Minister of State, has written to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Minister accept the point that her noble Friend has made in his letter, namely, that he understands the problem but thinks that carrying out an experiment might be administratively difficult? Does she agree that unless we have an experiment we cannot possibly assess the difficulties which may or may not follow if the proposals which have been made can be given wider circulation?
    Dr. Summerskill: I accept the fact that the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention which looked into the suggestion did not think that the hon. Member's experiment was feasible. The committee includes representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Chamber of Trade. However, it is sympathetic towards a similar scheme—the provision of parking areas for shopping bags in new premises.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not curious that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who belongs to a party dedicated to the sanctity of private property, should now be regarded as the best friend of every shoplifting sneak thief in the country? Why does he always come to their defence?

    Lord Longford (Prison Visits)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits have been paid by Lord Longford to Her Majesty's Prisons since January 1971; how many interviews he had with Myra Hindley and with Maxine Croft; whether he had any meetings with Patricia Cairns; and what instructions apply in relation to future applications to visit these prisoners.
    Dr. Summerskill: There is no central record of the number of visits made to prisoners by Members of either House of Parliament but records are kept of visits to individual prisoners. These show that Myra Hindley has been visited by Lord Longford on 13 occasions since January 1971. There is no record that he ever visited Maxine Croft, or of any meeting with Patricia Cairns in Holloway while she was employed as a prison officer there. My right hon. Friend does not propose to make any changes in the arrangements for authorising visits to prisons by Members of either House of Parliament.
    Mr. Moonman: The House will want to study that reply with great care. What are the rules which govern visits to prisoners by peers and Members of Parliament, particularly when the private conversations are then revealed, as Lord Longford revealed them recently in a whole chapter in his book relating to his meetings with the Moors murderess? Should not this practice be condemned?
    Dr. Summerskill: A Member of Parliament may visit or interview a prisoner only on the express authority of the Secretary of State unless he receives a valid visiting order direct from a prisoner or is a justice of the peace. As to the conditions on which he visits a prison, it is assumed that a Member can be trusted to use with discretion and propriety any information that he gains in the course of his visit. Facilities were always granted to Lord Longford in his capacity as a Member of the House of Lords who had an interest in the welfare and rehabilitation of individual prisoners.
    Mr. Tinn: I accept the necessity for Members of the House of Commons to have access to prisons; but I am somewhat disturbed to learn of the privileges extended to Members of the House of Lords, bearing in mind that a constituent of mine, who wished to have access to certain prisoners to investigate the circumstances of the death of his son, has been denied such access. I should have thought that if a privileged occasion existed that would have been it.
    Dr. Summerskill: I shall certainly reconsider the conditions of access to prisons by peers. The situation at the moment is that Members of Parliament and peers can visit prisoners, but only

    665
    with the express authority of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is not a peer just as much a Member of Parliament as any Member of this House?

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been detected in each of the last three years; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): Eighty-four illegal entrants against whom action could be taken were detected during 1971; 59 during 1972; and 258 during 1973. The latter figure includes foreign nationals, for whom records were kept for the first time in 1973.
    Mr. Cormack: I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Is he satisfied with the degree of co-operation and coordination between our authorities and those on the Continent in tackling this serious problem?
    Mr. Lyon: Yes. We are constantly seeking ways to improve our checks against evasion and illegal smuggling. We have a department which is co-operating with authorities not only in Europe but all over the world.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House resent intensely the remarks made a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench? Will my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his supplementary question to the Question.
    Mr. Latham: Indeed I am, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on from that point to ask my hon. Friend whether he will give an assurance that any investigations conducted under this heading will be made by the legitimate police force, which is answerable to the Home Secretary, who is then accountable to this House, not by private security firms with which the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench is or has been associated?
    Sir K. Joseph—
    Mr. Lyon: Perhaps I may answer my hon. Friend. I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the personal matters relating to him.
    In our security checks for the prevention of illegal smuggling and illegal entrance we rely upon the immigration service and, to some extent, the police. We do not rely upon any private security organisation at all.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scope of the international organisations responsible for illegal immigration, which has been disclosed in a number of criminal trials, indicates an operation on a vast scale between the Indian subcontinent and this country, and shows that far larger numbers of illegal immigrants are reaching this country than have been disclosed by the official figures that he gave this afternoon? Does he consider that the amnesty that Her Majesty's Government have granted to illegal immigrants is a great encouragement to illegal immigration? Will he therefore reconsider this policy?
    Mr. Lyon: I do not agree with anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
    It is clear from the figures produced by both the previous Government and this Government that the number of those who come to the notice of the authorities is so small that the likelihood of this hidden iceberg, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman constantly refers, is remote. The fact that he goes on asserting time and again that there is this vast inflow is merely designed to inflame race relations in this country rather than to get at the root of the problem that we must tackle.
    Mr. Grieve: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate.
    Mr. Fernyhough: May I ask my hon. Friend to tell us how many of those illegal immigrants were white, how many were coloured, how many came from the United States, and how many came from Europe before we joined the EEC?
    Mr. Lyon: My right hon. Friend will have to put down a Question before I

    667
    can possibly give the answer that he requires. I have to deal daily with those who are deported under the law as it exists. I find that they come from all parts of the world, and that they are of different colours.
    Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that my question was designed to inflame racial prejudice—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.
    Mr. Lane: Is it not obvious that the Government's amnesty for a past category of illegal immigrants may have the effect, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said, of encouraging more illegal immigration in future? Will the Minister of State give an absolute assurance that the Government will vigorously pursue all the measures to counter illegal immigration that the last Government were developing?
    Mr. Lyon: It will not have that effect, because it was designed to cover only a very limited number of illegal entrants who were dealt with under the retrospective legislation of the 1971 Act. We are increasing our checks against any kind of illegal immigration. In general, those who evade immigration laws will be sent back.
    Sir K. Joseph: Am I entitled, on a point of order—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall rule on this matter. I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order at the end of Question Time.
    Later—
    Sir K. Joseph: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) suggested that I am or was connected with a security firm. Although I can see nothing discreditable in such a connection, I wish to say to the House that I am not and was not so connected.
    Mr. Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my anxiety to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that my supplementary question was in order, I inadvertently used the definite article. I did not intend to say" the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front
    668
    Bench "but" right hon Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench". I apologise to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
    Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of his answer to my supplementary question on Question No. 12—the Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—the Minister of State, Home Office said that my question was designed to inflame racial prejudice. My question was designed to do nothing of the sort. I do not expect the Minister to agree with me, and I think that he is wrong, but it is wrong of him to impute that my question had base and criminal motives, and I ask him to withdraw.
    Mr. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, which I began in the middle of my answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, which caused me to stop, I recognise that I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice. I think that instead of "designed" I should have said "calculated".

    James Hanratty
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now set up an inquiry into the procedures leading to the arrest and conviction of James Hanratty for murder, in view of new evidence which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Batesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the new evidence which is now available, he will now set up a public inquiry into the case of James Hanratty.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have considered very carefully all the representations which have been made to me, but I am not at present persuaded that it would be right to institute a public inquiry into the case. I intend, however, to invite a Queen's Counsel to make an independent assessment of the representations and of any other relevant material the result of which I would propose to publish.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend accept that even the announcement of this limited inquiry will be widely welcomed not only in the House but by Mr. and Mrs. Hanratty, senior, and many

    669
    others, who have spent years campaigning for this very tragic affair to be cleared up? We accept that the possibility of intolerable stress for some of the major witnesses militates against a public inquiry, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we must avoid the lack of credibility which in retrospect attaches to the Scott Henderson inquiry, for example, into the Timothy Evans case? Will this investigator have the power to call for documents and to subpoena witnesses, albeit to be heard in private, and will the Hanratty family be granted representation at the inquiry?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir, there cannot, at an inquiry of this kind, be power to subpoena witnesses or to have representation as such. I think that I am right in saying that neither consideration applied in the case of the Brabin inquiry, which was the ultimate inquiry into the Evans case.
    I have been concerned in this matter to try to reassure public opinion and those concerned that justice has not only been done but been seen to be done. At the same time, I have been greatly concerned at not having the new difficulty of an appearance in the witness box of the undoubted victim of this crime. I have in mind, too, the difficulty of conducting informal trials of other people.
    I think that this is the right way to proceed. Let us have the report. The person whom I shall ask to report may see people if he so wishes. Let us publish the result and see where we are then.
    Mr. Bates: I thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration that he has given to this matter at a time when he has a great number of other matters to which he has had to give much of his time. May I assure my right hon. Friend that there will be an understanding of the reason why much of the inquiry could not take place in public? Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that the Brabin inquiry was held in public, apart from just two days, I think? Might it not be possible for most of this inquiry to take place in public? Is he also aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this matter and that the question of confidence in this inquiry will turn very much on the powers given to the Queen's Counsel who is conducting
    670
    it? Will counsel have power to call for any relevant police documents and Home Office documents, and will private individuals be able to submit evidence to him?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, individuals concerned can submit evidence. Counsel will have power to see all documents which are relevant. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said earlier. He is probably right in saying that the Brabin inquiry was held to some extent in public, but it had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to take evidence on oath, or to demand the disclosure of documents. But my intention, certainly, is that this inquiry, which I trust will be useful, will have all the documents available to it.

    Heathrow (Security)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the new security arrangements at Heathrow Airport.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the Policing of Airports Bill, which I presented on 12th June and which I hope will shortly receive a Second Reading.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What will be the future of the original Airports Police in relation to the Metropolitan Police?
    Mr. Jenkins: The original Airports Police will come into the Metropolitan Police so far as London Airport is concerned.

    Women Prisoners
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are now held in prison; and what changes he proposes in the custodial treatment of women offenders.
    Dr. Summerskill: On 31st May 1974, there were 1,086 women and girls in custody in prison service establishments in England and Wales, of whom 302 were unsentenced. We intend to continue the policy of providing a flexible régime of treatment and training for women offenders which will, so far as possible, take account of their individual needs.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Does she not agree that of those women who are in prison the overwhelming majority really ought not to be there, and that women who are committed to prison because they are prostitutes, drug addicts, drunkards or shoplifters get very little help from the prison system? Will she do everything possible to see that they are either transferred to open prisons or receive care in the community? Can my hon. Friend say anything at this stage about the abolition of forced feeding of women in prison?
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that it is his long-term aim to secure a significant reduction in the prison population and he has emphasised that the courts have a wide range of non-custodial penalties available to them. As regards the forced feeding of women in prison, the Home Secretary has already said that he is considering this matter.
    Sir John Hall: The Minister said that over 300 women are in prison today when still awaiting sentence. I think that I heard her correctly. What is the average length of time, roughly, that they spend there before sentence is passed?
    Dr. Summerskill: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an accurate answer to that question—if he will table a separate Question, I shall answer it—but efforts are being made to increase the number of women bailed and to reduce the number of those held on custodial remand.

    PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Prime Minister whether he has plans to visit Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Dublin.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Christchurch, Dorset.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Ormskirk.
    Mr. Batesasked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to Bebington.
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the new local authority district of Mid-Sussex.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Scotland.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to visit Rhodesia, Dublin, Christchurch in Dorset, Ormskirk, Bebington, the new local authority district of mid-Sussex, or Scotland, Sir.
    Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order. Mr. Heath.
    Mr. Heath: It directly affects the future conduct of business. Is it not an abuse of the existing traditions of Prime Minister's Questions that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Heath: As it directly affects the conduct of business, I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not an abuse of the tradition of Prime Minister's Questions that Questions of the nature which the Prime Minister has just grouped together should be answered in this way, because this obviously deliberately limits the number of supplementaries which you can call about a particular place to which the Prime Minister has referred.
    The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed, when other hon. Members are not, to raise points of order during Question Time—[Interruption.] May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, that the right hon. Gentleman frequently changed his practice about grouping, and that it is widely recognised in the House that, for example, just before the last

    673
    recess, when I was asked, in a Question, to visit Derbyshire, more than half the time of questions on my Derbyshire non-visit related to Chile, on which I had answered Questions for 40 minutes two days earlier?
    Mr. Skinner—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite willing to pursue this matter further at the end of Questions. Meanwhile, I rule that nothing has occurred with which the Chair should interfere. Mr. Evans.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On very many occasions you, with the approval of the House, have quite rightly said that you deprecated points of order during Question Time because they deprived Members of having their Questions answered. Even this afternoon, about 10 minutes ago, you rightly deferred hearing a point of order that was about to be raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). But having allowed the Leader of the Opposition a privilege that is not given to any other Member, and now having had this point of order, hon. Members have already been deprived of five minutes of Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker: They have also been deprived of another two minutes by the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I am quite willing to pursue this matter later. I have to exercise my judgment on these matters. I did so. We shall now continue with the supplementary questions.
    Mr. Evans: The intention of my Question was to get the House to consider the issue of Rhodesia. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has no intention of making that unnecessary journey, but does he realise that as a party we have put positive proposals on the illegal régime in Rhodesia, that in the past 25 years two-thirds of humanity have been liberated, and that the only colonial territories left are in that part of southern Africa? Now that the Portuguese dictatorship has been overthrown, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau will soon reach independence. As the custodian of the party's manifesto, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we carry out the policies in that document?
    The Prime Minister: I was trying to save the time of the House so that we
    674
    could make progress. I am sorry that time has been lost.
    There is only one point on which I disagree with my hon. Friend. What he said about policy in relation to Rhodesia is not only the view of our party, and Her Majesty's Government; the previous Government, following the proposals put forward by the Pearce Commission, also took the view that we could not as a Government or a House, agree to any proposals for Rhodesia which did not carry the support of the African as well as the white population. We have all said that. There have been talks recently between the Smith régime and Bishop Muzorewa and the African National Council, and a delegation from the ANC is coming to visit me in the very near future. Whatever it may have been in the past, I do not regard the matter as now being an issue of division between the parties.
    Mr. Redmond: As the Prime Minister apparently is not moving around very much, will he send someone else to Dublin, in view of the serious situation that could arise if, by any accident, this country left the Common Market, while the Irish Republic will, as we know, stay in? Would not that be an absolute death blow to the long-term chances of peace in the island of Ireland? Should we not have contingency plans to guard against that?
    The Prime Minister: I think that Common Market membership is a separate question from that of the grave situation in Northern Ireland. Whilst I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I had not thought of Common Market membership as necessarily a solution to the deep-lying problems of Northern Ireland. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to go there. We are in close touch with the Government of the Irish Republic, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited Dublin recently.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend finds that he is unable to make an official visit to Ormskirk. Will he take note of the unacceptably high level of unemployment in the area of Kirkby in my constituency? Will he also take a personal interest in the workers' sit-in at the New Are factory there and give whatever assistance he and

    675
    the Government can give to their attempts to create a workers' co-operative? Further, will my right hon. Friend note the desire of my constituents for the speedy implementation of the Labour Party's proposals for an extension of public ownership and the preservation of the right to work?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached a question about which he and I have been concerned over many years. I have visited the Ormskirk constituency many times—more, I think, than my hon. Friend—and Kirkby, which was in my constituency until recently. I am very concerned about what has happened to the plant, which was saved from closure two years ago, but there are great problems in any Government's putting money into the factory in such a situation. The right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was very helpful to the factory, and consulted me at the end of last year about his anxieties. The collateral which the then Government thought would be available, in terms of premises, against the Government loan does not now seem to be available. There are heavy losses. We are concerned now to save the factory itself for employment much more suited to the purposes for which it was built. It is one of the best engineering premises in the North of England. We are now concerned with finding alternative employment there. We do not rule out, if necessary, the Government's taking over the premises and providing them for suitable management.
    Mr. Adley: As the Prime Minister has just expressed his great concern about jobs, if he is unwilling to come to Christchurch, perhaps he will be willing to receive a deputation of my constituents who are working on Concorde at BAC, Hurn, near Christchurch, explain why his Government are still prevaricating about Concorde, and tell them that he has come out firmly in favour of the aircraft and that he will allow production to proceed as quickly as possible.
    The Prime Minister: I know and understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the future of the Concorde project, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry—who represent other areas
    676
    involved, such as Weybridge, Bristol and the engine-producing areas. The Government have been going into the matter very fully I do not think it would help if I said anything further this afternoon, but I take very seriously what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the new idea of answering Questions together? It is bound to lead to questions and answers being very diffuse, and may well ensure that Questions from No. Q2 onwards are not dealt with.
    To return to Question No. Q1, what comment has my right hon. Friend to make on the announcement of a general election in Rhodesia? Will he make it clear to all concerned that there is no question of this Government's taking any account of an election based on such an undemocratic electorate? Will he take note of the need for the long-standing political detainees, such as Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole, to be released to enable them to engage in meaningful negotiations on behalf of the majority?
    The Prime Minister: I did this grouping today hoping that we could make more rapid progress than we have done in recent weeks, but we lost seven minutes at the beginning because the Leader of the Opposition wanted to celebrate the end of the phoney war by raising a point of order.
    With regard to my right hon. Friend's substantive question about Rhodesia, I entirely endorse what he said. The calling of a so-called general election by an illegal Government carries no weight at all in this House, because very few in the House purport to recognise that there is a legal Government in Rhodesia. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's strictures on that illegal régime for the illegal detention of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole, as well as many others. Both have now been detained for a period of 10 years—in the case of Mr. Nkomo without trial.
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for answering my Question, which, as it stands at No. 19 on the Order Paper, I was not totally expecting.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but the hon. Gentleman must ask a Question.
    Mr. Renton: If he had visited Mid-Sussex the Prime Minister would have found that many of my constituents were interested in the date of the next General Election. Will he advise us what progress he is making into his investigation of voting at a General Election on what might be called a shift basis?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. It is obvious that I have pleased one hon. Member by grouping a number of Questions, all of which were put down on the same day—in which I am following the Leader of the Opposition—and enabling the hon. Members concerned to put their Questions. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was not expecting it, but I am happy to feel that he is glad to have had a chance to put a supplementary question on the matter.
    With regard to the date of the next General Election, which is being pressed on the Government so avidly by the Leader of the Opposition, I have no immediate information to give the House. When I have, I shall see that the House is informed, of course.
    With regard to what I think the hon. Gentleman called staggered voting, the 1945 precedent—[Interruption.]—Some hon. Members, including some of the interrupters, who will not be back next time, would of course like to have elections when many of their working-class voters are away. I do not think it likely that a recommendation would be made for a July election which would involve the 1945 rules. I do not think that it is likely, and I hope that it helps the hon. Gentleman for me to say so.
    Mr. James Johnson: I revert to Salisbury. Is my right hon. Friend aware that according to information that some of us have there was a fair chance of Smith making some agreement with Bishop Muzorewa and his people in the ANC? Is my right hon. Friend saying today that if that were possible he would be against it, or would he lend his best efforts to that end?
    The Prime Minister: I did not say that I would be against it. I think that the Government's attitude is that of their predecessors. If there were meaningful talks—and I think that there have been talks between Mr. Smith and his col
    678
    leagues on the one hand and Bishop Muzorewa and the ANC on the other—and if those talks produced a scheme that looked like commending itself to the African population as well as to the white population, that is something that we would all take very seriously. However, we would have to be satisfied, as our predecessors insisted that they would have to be satisfied, that such a scheme was acceptable to the African population.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Scotland, where on 28th February he would have found that unemployment had fallen sharply, that job vacancies were at an all-time high, that industry was in a good state and emigration was at an all-time low? If he went to Scotland today he would see the total uncertainty which industry is facing because of the wild nationalisation plans put forward by the Secretary of State for Industry.
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Did he say something about February? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.") In February, Scotland was on a three-day week like the rest of the country. The numbers signing on unemployed or temporarily stopped at that time were the highest since the war. I do not know whether Scotland had the same experience as the rest of Britain—I suspect that it did—but what the Government did was to end the three-day week in two days.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to unemployment figures. He will have seen the statement which was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland comparing the present level of unemployment in Scotland with a figure miles beyond 100,000, which was never reached from 1964 to 1970, which the hon. Gentleman was always concerned to defend when he was a Scottish Minister.
    Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, incidentally, appears to be treating Question Time more and more like a bad version of the Clitheroe Kid, during Questions on visits to various places, grouped all the visit Questions

    679
    together without exception, save the Question which I tabled—No. Q6—about visiting all the capital cities of the European Economic Community. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that that was right and justified, or was it done because my Question was more difficult than some of the others.
    The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman's point is one that I was considering, and I should like to think about what he said. We are all learning—some of us—on these matters. The reason that I did not include the hon. Gentleman's Question—I admit that perhaps it was wrong not to do so—was that the answer to all the other Questions was that I was not proposing to visit the places concerned. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am going to Brussels next week. I was in Germany yesterday. I should very much like to consider the point that the hon. Member made.

    QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
    Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a number of hon. Members table Questions on a particular speech, which is now accepted as customary, the Prime Minister of the day can be pressed on that matter. It is obvious that this afternoon, when a large number of Questions were answered about visits to different places on which back bench and Front Bench hon. Members may have wished to press the right hon. Gentleman, there was no possible opportunity of pressing him. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will abandon this procedure until the Procedure Committee has ruled upon it.
    Mr. Speaker: In my experience one of the problems is that most Prime Ministers, if they are asked a substantive Question, usually transfer it to the Minister responsible. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was no more guilty than any other Prime Minister. It has happened all the time. That is one of the problems.
    The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the suggestion that the matter should be further considered by the Select Com
    680
    mittee. However, the House will be aware that the Select Committee on Procedure recently considered this matter and reached the conclusion—I speak from memory, and hon. Members can correct me—that the present situation regarding visit Questions was unsatisfactory. The Committee did not have anything to recommend to the House on the matter. If, on the second bite at this cherry, it can find a satisfactory answer—I recognise that this afternoon's experiment has not been 100 per cent. successful, partly because we wasted seven minutes at the beginning on the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—that will be a matter for the House to consider.
    I was very much concerned that before the Whitsun Recess a large number of Questions placed high up on the Order Paper were not reached because on a Question relating to Derbyshire we discussed Chile for nearly 10 minutes. It was not satisfactory that important Questions only a little lower down on the Order Paper were not reached. We have a problem that all hon. Members must face.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be suggested that the Procedure Committee be given the task of improving things. Would it not be a good idea if in this Parliament we established a Procedure Committee? We have not yet done so.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I paid tribute to you, and I think that the House was pleased with the way in which you previously tried to safeguard hon. Members' time on Questions to the Prime Minister. Would it not be possible to have such a safeguard by having an agreed procedure whereby, for example, the first four or five Questions, which may be of a similar character, are lumped together, at the discretion of the Prime Minister in consultation with the Chair? The other Questions could take their normal course. The reasonable figure for such a grouping could be discussed through the usual channels, and the Prime Minister of the day would be able to say, "With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the first three Questions together". Of course, it might

    681
    be the first three, four or five Questions. That would solve the problem.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If I am going to get further advice on this matter, I think it would be more convenient for the House if it were conveyed to me in some other way. We have two very important debates today, and also business questions.
    Mr. Nigel Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While one admires the Prime Minister's ingenuity in avoiding Questions that he is frightened to answer, will he tell us how he proposes to group Questions in future—otherwise hon. Members will have no idea how to put down Questions to him?
    The Prime Minister: That question seems to have been addressed to me, rather than to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall consider what has been said today, and also your own proposal. I find some merit in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Since there is at present no Select Committee on Procedure, I think that one will have to be appointed specially. There may be a case for discussions through the usual channels to see whether we can agree, not only with the official Opposition but with other parties and hon. Members, on a means acceptable to the House which will help us to move rapidly to other Questions. It may be that the answer lies in grouping only three or four Questions together, whichever happened to be first on the Order Paper. I suggest that there should first be talks through the usual channels, in order to make progress on this matter.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The back bencher in this House has a right to suspect every Prime Minister all the time, because all Prime Ministers have abused Question Time at one time or another. Is it not the case that in the absence of a Select Committee on Procedure the responsibility for protecting the back bencher from this abuse rests with you? In this case, would it not have been within your power to ignore the grouping and to call the other Questions? You are not bound to call supplementary questions from hon. Members who have put down Questions about
    682
    visits to various parts of the world. It is entirely up to you to protect the back bencher from the abuses of every Prime Minister who has sat on the Front Bench.
    Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. Q2 was obviously vitally important, and the device used by the Prime Minister deprived me of the opportunity of putting to him the position in Northern Ireland, which has been blasted by bombs during the past few days, and of finding out what pressures he intends to bring on the Prime Minister of the Republic to end the smuggling of bombs and explosives from the Republic to Northern Ireland. What protection do you give to a back bencher who represents part of the Province which is suffering in this way?
    Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly consider all these points.

CYPRUS (SHOOTING INCIDENT)
Mr. Maurice Macmillan (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken over the death by shooting of Mr. Michael Howe in Cyprus, and if he will make a statement.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lester): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this Question.
The British High Commissioner at Nicosia called on the President of the Republic of Cyprus on the morning following this most distressing incident and expressed our grave concern. President Makarios expressed his deep personal sorrow and assured him that he would institute a full inquiry and would take immediate steps to avoid any recurrence.
I would like to take this opportunity of expressing our very deep sympathy with Mr. Howe's family and our best wishes for the full recovery of those who were injured in the incident.
Mr. Macmillan: I thank the hon. Lady for her statement. I am sure that the whole House shares her expression of sympathy to Mr. Howe's family and of

683
good wishes for those injured. I thank her for getting the British High Commissioner so rapidly into consultation with the President. I am sure that the House will be reassured to know that President Makarios himself is taking a personal interest and, I understand, may well make a personal statement.
I hope that the Foreign Office will continue to keep in consultation with the Government of Cyprus, particularly in view of the large number of tourists who visit Cyprus, so that we can reassure our constituents that this type of incident is not likely to recur. We understand the problems in Cyprus, but I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that we need reassurance about police methods and police discipline within the island.
Miss Lestor: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that as soon as we have further information I will see that he and the House are fully informed. We are keeping the question of the general security situation in Cyprus under review. At this stage, we see no reason to discourage intending visitors from going to Cyprus but they should be aware of the security situation and they should be careful. I understand that members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces and families stationed in Cyprus have also been advised at the moment to exercise due caution in the light of the security situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Railways Bill and of the Policing of Airports Bill.
Proceedings on the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motion relating to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY 25TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
684
Motion on the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme.
WEDNESDAY 26TH JUNE—Supply (9th allotted day): Until seven o'clock, debate on an Opposition motion on Agriculture.
Remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
THURSDAY 27TH JUNE—Supply (10th allotted day): Debate on an Opposition motion on Rates.
Motions on New Palace Yard landscaping and car parking, and on parliamentary accommodation.
FRIDAY 28TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 1ST JULY—Second Reading of the Social Security (Amendment) Bill.
Debate on an Opposition motion on pension policy.
Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the following week, we shall be in the month of July, and the Government seem to be getting somewhat behind hand with business? The House will require to have debates on a number of important matters before it rises—for example, the Lane Report on abortion, the Nugent Report on defence land, the Hardman report on the dispersal of the Civil Service, the O'Brien Report on the export of animals, the Younger Report on young adult offenders, the Government's Red Paper on devolution, and the Government's decisions on the nuclear reactors and Concorde. No doubt the House will want to have a two-day debate on economic affairs before we rise, and it may well be that by that time we shall want a debate on foreign affairs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take notice of these requirements before we rise for the Summer Recess.
Mr. Short: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have not undertaken to have debates on all those subjects, but I think that we can debate most of them, certainly enough to satisfy him.
Sir G. de Freitas: Since last week, the Committee on European Secondary Legislation &c has found another four

685
proposals sufficiently important to require debate in the House. When will the Government provide time, as they are under an obligation to do?
Mr. Short: I understand that we have had two reports from the Committee. I very much hope that in the week after next we shall be able to find time for the three most important of those orders.
Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is highly unsatisfactory that we still have not had a full-scale debate on the Kilbrandon Report or on the new paper published by the Government? Will he ensure that at least before the election this time the House is given the opportunity to express its opinion and is given the views of a senior Minister on behalf of the Government? After all, the whole of the rest of the country is supposed to be being consulted now.
Mr. Short: When the Government arrive at a conclusion I hope that it will be debated. The paper we published recently was purely a consultative document which did little more than summarise the Kilbrandon Report.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the important Nugent Report about the release of defence lands, and will he consider giving time for that to be discussed along with the Sandford Report, which has a close relationship and which deals with land in the national parks?
Mr. Short: As always, my hon. Friend has made a useful and intelligent suggestion which I shall certainly bear in mind.
Mr. Marten: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), may we have a reassurance that in view of the delay in debating some of the regulations referred to us by the Committee on European Secondary Legislation, the Government will in the meantime place a stop order on any decisions which might be made on those matters which have to be referred to the House? Can we therefore linger on into August until we complete the matters referred to us by the Committee dealing with secondary legislation?
Mr. Short: I understand that the first point on which the Council of Ministers is likely to make a decision is an order
686
on economic guidelines, and I promised last week that the House would have an opportunity to debate this before it went to the Council of Ministers. I shall adhere to that. I hope that the debate will take place in the week after next.
Mr. Ford: Has my right hon. Friend anything to add to the statement he made on Monday when he said that the Services Committee would be meeting urgently to consider matters of security?
Mr. Short: I am told that the Services Committee has met twice to discuss security, once on Tuesday and once today, and I understand that it has laid before the House today a preliminary report on security. I shall take any action that it may be necessary for me to take to see that the report is implemented, in consultation with you, of course, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman promised last week to consider the point I raised about European Questions. I pointed out that under the new procedure there will be fewer opportunities to direct Questions about Europe if they are penned into the last 20 minutes of Foreign Office Questions. Since we are having this experiment on Wednesday, has the right hon. Gentleman considered this issue?
Mr. Short: No, but when we consider the point which the hon. Member has raised, I shall bear in mind what he said. If he would like to come to see me about it, I shall be glad to discuss it with him.
Mr. Jay: On the question of the Committee on European Secondary Legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the honourable House that we shall have time to debate all its reports before the recess, otherwise the procedure will lose its meaning?
Mr. Short: I would certainly hope so, unless the Committee decided to swamp us with orders. So far, however, it has sent five orders altogether, and I hope that we can find time to debate them all before the Summer Recess. Three of them are of particular importance, and I hope that we shall be able to find time for them in the week after next week.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I press the Leader of the House on the question of security? He says that a document

687
has been laid on the Table. In view of the printing difficulties it may take some time for the rest of the House to see that document. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say something definite about it now?
Mr. Short: The Chairman of the Services Committee showed it to me after he had laid it before the House. I agree that it may be next week before hon. Members see it, but I believe that its more important aspects of advice to you, Mr. Speaker, are that all Members should be required to carry passes and that civil servants should be required to carry photographic passes. They do not have them at the moment because they have ordinary Civil Service passes.
The first of these proposals raises the question of privilege and I shall certainly look at that, but I am sure that hon. Members would be prepared to forgo, or at least suspend part of their privilege in the present rather difficult situation.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Select Committee on Members' Interests has decided to sit only once a week, and if that is so, will he explain how he can stick to his original promise that the Committee will report back before the end of July?
Mr. Short: The Committee has decided that it will be impossible for it to report to the House before the end of July, but it has reaffirmed the instruction from the House that it will report at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Hastings: May we expect a statement from the Government on the forthcoming United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which I understand has the gravest implications on the economic future of this country?
Mr. Short: I shall convey that request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman—or I suppose I should say my right hon. Friend—will be aware of the situation that arose this week concerning the recall of
688
the WEU delegation to Westminster. Does my right hon. Friend realise that because we broke our pairs last night, the Tories have broken theirs tonight, with the result that for most of yesterday and up to today no British Member has been present at that delegation? Is not this unsatisfactory and will my right hon. Friend consider it on future occasions?
Mr. Short: This is a matter between the two parties to be discussed through the usual channels, but I am told that there were no broken pairs.
Mr. Lane: What has happened to the Bill on the safety of sports grounds of which the Leader of the House was reminded several weeks ago?
Mr. Short: The Bill is encountering some difficulty, but it will be coming along eventually.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: My right hon. Friend spoke a few moments ago about the advisability of Members of Parliament having passes. Is it not much more important that Members' wives, secretaries—and, more important, any person who comes in with a parcel or comes in to do a job—should have passes and identity cards? The police know most of the Members of Parliament, but they do not know all the workmen around here.
Mr. Short: All secretaries are required to have photographic passes. The report also suggests that it would be a good idea if Members' wives and families had passes. Workmen are, of course, required to have passes, and I am assured that this system is now being tightened up. It had rather fallen into disuse for casual workers.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the special circumstances of today I must move on with business.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 8TH JULY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Nigel Lawson.

Mr. Toby Jessel.

Mr. Frank Allaun.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [8th ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  LABOUR'S PLANS FOR INDUSTRY
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Heath: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the Government's damaging industrial policies based on a massive extension of nationalisation and control of individual companies.
  Although this debate is short, it is devoted to the coverage of the whole of the Government's industry policy. After three and a half months the impact of the Government's policies is already seen very clearly on industry—as a result of the Government's action in four separate spheres, with which I shall deal. First, there is the burden deliberately placed on industry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. The right hon. Gentleman took £1,100 million out of industry's cash flow this year—£420 million in corporation tax, £340 million in employers' contribution, and the remainder in the increase in the nationalised industries' prices. The impact of this shortage of cash flow is already being seen in the conditions of many firms in this country, in the reduction in the investment forecasts and in the cancellation of plans which would have led to new jobs. I believe that the reduction of the cash flow is a deliberate policy designed to force many firms into a situation in which they will have to ask for Government assistance, and as a result of their being in this position the Secretary of State for Industry will then be able to gain control over them, the control which he wants and which is in accordance with his published plans.
  There is then the impact of the Budget on the consumer by deliberately forcing
  690
  up prices. This has triggered the threshold earlier than was necessary and the very triggering of the threshold—on three occasions with the last rise in the BPI, and I expect there to be a further two when the announcement is made tomorrow—is bound to have its impact first on prices and then on the cash flow of many firms. As a result, we are also seeing a rash of industrial disputes over thresholds because of the way in which this matter has been handled by this Government. About 2 million workers negotiated thresholds and the remainder are now disputing the whole question.
  There should also be added to this the damage which this approach did to those on middle sized incomes, who come largely from middle management and now find that their incentives are greatly diminished. The obvious result, which could easily have been forecast, is that these people look to other countries to see whether there are better possibilities for them. This is even extending, as I know well, to the artistic world, to those who have come to make their homes and lives in London as the greatest musical capital of the world and now have the greatest doubts whether they should remain here.
  The second factor which has made its impact is the Government's attitude towards the EEC and the so-called renegotiation of the treaty and the talk of taking Britain out of the Community. This has completely undermined the confidence of firms which had already made plans—some of them implemented, others well on the way to implementation—to operate freely within the Community. They now find themselves in a state of doubt about the future. The result is postponed investment and again the loss of jobs which could have been created by it.
  In addition, we must include the loss of investment from overseas by those who were prepared to invest here because they wanted to be inside the Community. They are now unsure of the future in Britain, so this investment is being lost, together with the jobs which would have gone with it, many of which would have been in Scotland, Wales and the development areas.
  All of this is quite unnecessary if the Foreign Secretary is now genuine in

  691
  saying that he does not propose to ask for any changes in the Treaty of Accession or the Treaty of Rome. If that is so, none of this doubt need have been inspired. Changes inside the Community will constantly be made, they have been made already while we have been a member, and they will go on being made to suit the conditions of the member countries, no matter which country is involved.
  In fact, by talking first of renegotiation and then saying that they did not propose to make any change in the treaties, the Government have been playing out a charade—but a damaging and very dangerous charade from the point of view of investment in industry in this country, either indigenous investment or investment from overseas. They have done it in order to try to heal the breaches in their own ranks. It is time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues faced their Left Wing, showed them what the facts of life really are about Britain's place in the world and looked after our national interests as they should have done when they became the Government.
  The third matter which has made its impact on industry is the Government's Green Paper on the so-called "worker participation". This is a misnomer if ever there was one. These are not proposals for participation—
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): It is not a Green Paper.
  Mr. Heath: I am referring to the general paper which has been issued by the right hon. Gentleman's party—
  The Prime Minister: That is a party document.
  Mr. Heath: Yes. It is called a Green Paper, as I understand it. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to disown it, of course he may do so.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a Government Green Paper. There has been no such Green Paper issued by the Government. In his period of office, Conservative Central Office published an awful lot of tripe, but he never took responsibility for it.
  Mr. Heath: It is called a Green Paper—" A report to the Labour Party Indus
  692
  trial Policy Sub-Committee." If the right hon. Gentleman wants to refer to it as "tripe" he is free to do so.
  But these are not proposals for worker participation, for participation by workers elected by all those working in the firm. These are proposals which threaten a system of outside control of firms and companies by professional union officials, men who may well know nothing about a particular firm and will have to know nothing about it.
  In that Labour Party document—I am agreeable to the Prime Minister's disowning the lot if he wants, because that might start to restore confidence in British industry—the proposals would mean the so-called "election" but, in fact, "appointment" to 50 per cent. board membership, with alternating chairmen, of union leaders. We know that a union leader can be elected for life on a ballot of less than 10 per cent. of his total membership and that he himself might get only 7 per cent.
  This is what is undermining confidence in British industry, that the right hon. Gentleman's Government will take over proposals of this kind and expect British industry to be run in this way. This proposal has thoroughly undermined confidence. I repeat that it is not a proposal for worker participation. Many of us have long argued for that, and, in respect of the Community, I put it forward at the Summit Conference in Paris in 1972, specifically by arrangement with the then German Chancellor, Herr Brandt.
  Many of the best firms in this country are carrying through participation of this kind themselves at the moment, and they want it extended by a code, by European legislation or whatever it may be—but not this sort of proposal, in which 50 per cent. of a board's members would be nominated solely by union officials and drawn from union officials or those outside the company.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the fact that the practices of Europe are worth taking into account. What is the difference between these proposals by the Labour Party and those which have already been acquired by the EEC?
  Mr. Heath: There is a major difference—this is true also of the German system—which is that in Europe they are

  693
  "workers" and not solely "union members", and, moreover, that they consist of those who are in the firm and who, therefore, participate in the life of the firm and are not imposed from the outside. These are the two basic differences in a subject which is of great importance.
  Fourth, the matter which has made the greatest impact of all is the plans for widespread nationalisation of nine major industries and State control initially of the first 100 firms. I say "initially" because that is the word that the Secretary of State for Industry has openly used. These plans cover at least half of British manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister, of course, is coy about naming the 100 firms. I am not in the least surprised, but others will make sure that those 100 firms are known in every constituency in the country; in every branch they have, no matter where they are, the workers will be told exactly what lies in store for them if this Government have a chance to implement these proposals—the nationalisation, complete and outright, of shipbuilding, ship repairing, marine engineering, the ports, the aircraft industry, machine tools, pharmaceuticals, road haulage and North Sea oil and gas.
  It may well be that on pharmaceuticals and machine tools there is a limitation on the profitable parts of the industry available for nationalisation. It is difficult to understand the logic of that on any reasoning, but when it comes to the point I suspect that the Secretary of State for Industry would like to take the whole lot.
  On North Sea oil and gas, it may be that the Government will adapt our plans for carried interest or an additional revenue tax, but, again, they have not made their position clear. They have shown typical dithering over the whole question due to their internal arguments. We had already taken our decisions about taxation so far as the losses are concerned and announced them to Parliament. The Chancellor did that, too, and confirmed again that they would be taken in the Finance Bill.
  This indecision is damaging to the oil industry, but what is more important is that it is raising doubts in the minds of every overseas investor in the oil industry in the North Sea whether he should go on being prepared to put sums of money into prospecting. This is the damaging
  694
  effect of the Government's attitude and of the fact that they have not made their position clear over North Sea oil.
  We must also add to these proposals the very real threat emphasised by the Chancellor a year ago, that, given a chance—I have no doubt about that—they would be working on plans to nationalise the banks, insurance companies, building societies and other financial institutions. Indeed, I will freely grant it to the Secretary of State for Industry and his friends in the Cabinet—I think that they would agree—that if they are able to do what they plan in the way of widespread nationalisation over the field that I have described, plus the National Enterprise Board and the controls that he wants, they can argue logically that there is no justification for having any private financial institutions of any kind.
  Why should they have them if they have control of so much of industry and have nationalised such a wide spread of it? So it is logical for the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends to press for the nationalisation of the financial institutions as well, because, in their logic, no place would remain for them.
  What is more, one of the reasons why I am convinced that the Secretary of State for Social Services wants to postpone a large part of the 1973 Act is to ensure that the pension funds are under her control and not under control of any other kind. That is once again the propose of this Government's policy, to secure the control of contributions to pensions funds in the pensions arrangements. We would reach a position where all savings banks, building societies and insurance companies were under direct Government control. It means the removal of choice for the individual. It is absolutely basic. It is the removal of choice.
  It would mean that London would cease to be a major financial centre. Great damage will be done to our invisible exports, which in these last few years have been playing a major part in our balance of payments.
  These four policies—the damaging Budget, the uncertainty over membership of the EEC, the proposals put forward for trade union control of 50 per cent. on boards of management, and the massive extension of nationalisation, of State control—have undermined the confidence of

  695
  British industry and brought it to an all-time low. But they have also undermined the confidence of people outside Britain who were prepared to invest in this country.
  If one adds to those four points what is now clearly a very dangerous situation, the approaching breakdown of a pay and incomes policy of any kind, one can understand the collapse of confidence in industry and finance, the cancellation of many investment plans, and the collapse of the capital market and of share prices.
  There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are only too glad to welcome any collapse of the stock market. For the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must finance his deficit, this will now pose major problems, and for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with very close trade union connections, for they will look to their pension funds and see what is happening to them as a result of the undermining of confidence in British industry.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: The right hon. Gentleman in an obviously planned speech has chosen to restrict his comments to four areas—I meant to say "well planned"—which attempt to denigrate the present minority Government. Would he be prepared to give a fifth dimension to his speech and tell us how serious and deleterious were the effects of £1,200 million in public expenditure effected by his Chancellor of the Exchequer last December?
  Mr. Heath: I am always prepared to argue that point. As Prime Minister I discussed very often with the trade unions and the CBI the financial measures required to get expansion going in the economy. That expansion was achieved. It was more than 5 per cent. It was welcomed by the trade unions as well as by the employers.
  These plans—whatever the Government finally wish to admit—will be bitterly fought both politically and by industry. They will be bitterly fought by all those who believe in a free society, and this at a time when we face grave perils and when a divisive policy of this kind ought not to be put forward by any Government.
  696
  These plans are put forward as a solution to the problems of British industry. The problems are well known. Practically all members are fully acquainted with them. Many hon. Members have handled them over the past years. Some are historic, arising from the fact that we were the first industrialised nation. Another point is that we were not destroyed by the war to any great extent. We did not, therefore, have the advantage of modern post-war replacements as did some of our competitors. We received a loan of $2,000 million. That was thrown away and not used by the 1945 Government for the reconstruction for which it was intended. We know there are trade union attitudes and conditions governed to some extent still by the depressed years of the 1930s. We know there is a lack of mobility of labour in this country compared with other industrial nations. We also know that we have not forged ahead until very recently with sufficient training for middle or top management. There is a lack of cash flow, which has been made much worse by the recent Budget. There is an inability now to plan ahead because of changes of Government policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite is critical about the speed of industrial development during the last four years. If he and his colleagues had adhered in Opposition to the European policy they had while in Government British industry would have had complete confidence and could have invested to go into the EEC. That is a heavy responsibility which he will always carry.
  I know of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on my remarks concerning the unpleasant face of capitalism. I deliberately pointed that out. The right hon. Gentleman said we took no action about it. We took immediate action. We set up an inquiry into the complaints. I do not see why hon. Gentlemen have reason to complain about a DTI inquiry into a matter of this kind.
  We brought forward the Companies Act to deal specifically with the defects revealed. That is the correct way to deal with defects in a free-enterprise society. I wish right hon. Gentlemen were willing to do that with the trade union movement when defects are seen.
  Let us look frankly at our society. Where we see defects, let us be prepared to take action about them.

  697
  The Government's proposals do not provide any solutions to the problems which in some cases have long been evident in British industry. They are either damaging or else irrelevant, or in some cases both. What justification is put forward for this wide extension of State control? The Prime Minister is clear about it.
  The Prime Minister: It is in the manifesto.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister says that it is in the manifesto, but he has made no attempt to produce any justifification for it or intellectual argument about it.
  The Prime Minister: There is a mandate.
  Mr. Heath: There is no mandate for nationalisation by this Government. There were 18 million people who voted for parties which were against nationalisation, compared with 11 million who voted for the right hon. Gentleman's own party.
  We then come to the somewhat shoddy arguments now used. They seem to be coming forward for the first time, particularly from the Secretary of State for Industry. He says that industry pays £4 million a day in taxes and receives £2 million a day in aids of one kind or another, mainly regional programmes. Which party has pressed incessantly in the House of Commons for regional aid programmes? The last Government carried out more than any of their predecessors, although sometimes criticised by my hon. Friends on the back benches.
  The Secretary of State for Industry then claims that that gives him the right to have this massive extension of nationalisation and State control. But what argument is there in this? What right does it give him?
  The Secretary of State's figures are wrong. At Question Time the Prime Minister made a strange statement in which he said he thought more was paid to industry than industry paid in taxes. He knows more about football than politics. He seems to know more about football than statistics.
  Industry pays £10 million a day in taxes and receives £2 million per day in aid and grants of various kinds. For every £1 it receives it pays £5 in taxes.
  698
  What is the position of the nationalised industries? The write-offs in the nationalised industries now amount to more than £5,000 million, without including what Governments and public money have contributed towards their investment programmes.
  That is not a real argument. It is a diversion put forward by the Secretary of State for Industry. He is producing these figures only to confuse the real issue. The real issue is: in what way will the British economy be run? That is the real issue which faces the House and the country.
  There are two ways of running the economy, which is part nationalised and in part free-enterprise. The first is the way in which the British nation believes: that the Government take overall responsibility for strategy through the Budget and through monetary policy. The Government use planning powers to protect the environment and financial inducements to encourage investment and, for social reasons, for regional development. The second way is the way of State control and State planning throughout.
  The Prime Minister says that every European country has the sort of arrangement that he is proposing, and he may have in mind the Italian IRI. I say to him, and I am prepared to give the Government credit, that the Italian system has not coped with the problem of development in Southern Italy or done anything of any consequence to restore the balance between Southern Italy and the northern industrial region, whereas we, although we have not solved the problem, have had considerable success through our regional policies. Between 1960 and 1965, 192,000 new jobs were created, and, taking the more recent example of our Industry Act 1972, by October 1973 60,000 new jobs had been provided.
  That has not solved the problem entirely, but we ought not to discount what has been done under the system used by all post-war Governments which leaves the choice to industry and to individuals and which is carried through by consent. It is because we have had success that the Italian Government have been studying our methods and have supported us in Brussels in our proposals for the Regional Development Fund.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman neglects to mention Sweden, Israel and Canada, the countries in which a National Enterprise Board has been successful in industries such as tobacco, banking and coal. Why is the right hon. Gentleman being selective and referring only to Italy?
  Mr. Heath: I could not mention all the places which the Prime Minister this afternoon was asked to visit. The hon. Gentleman should read what his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said:
  "My concern with the National Enterprise Board suggestion is simply that it is a bad idea. It derives from a vision of a monopolistic society ruled by technocrats",
  and that is what the Secretary of State for Industry wants.
  The system that we have avoids strict controls on firms and individuals. It avoids the creation of more State monopolies and the huge apparatus of State domination. It protects individual freedom and choice, and the European countries use a similar system.
  I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Industry understands how a mixed economy works in a democracy. I do not think that he is interested in understanding it. What he understands is an economy based on State planning and State decision-making. That is what interests the right hon. Gentleman and leads to the production of his plans. Down that path lies the growth of collective coercion and a decrease of personal liberty, and in all this the Secretary of State is fully supported by the Prime Minister.
  What right hon. Gentlemen opposite never discuss—though I hope they will do so today—are the problems of the nationalised industries. They are, however, prepared to denigrate free enterprise. Let us discuss the problems of the nationalised industries.
  All those who have been concerned with the nationalised industries—and that means the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as much as it does us—know that the problems are basically infinitely greater than those in free enterprise. Nationalised industries are massive units—and many of the proposed units will be massive—remote and, to a large extent in the literal use of the word, unmanageable.
  700
  The quality of management for units of such a scale is almost entirely unobtainable from either inside the industry or outside, and those who have had experience of trying to make appointments to boards or of chairmen of these massive units know what the difficulties are.
  Nobody has found a way of making these massive and remote units properly responsible to Parliament, to Ministers or to anyone else. The industries themselves have not found a satisfactory way of delegation within themselves, and this is evident outside the Metropolis. They are usually unwilling to adapt their investment programmes to the trade cycle in order to help the national situation. They always press for subsidies of one kind and another because, they say, they are not commercially justified in making such a commitment. They are reluctant to work closely with British industry to encourage British industry because, they say, they much prefer to go elsewhere in the world where they may be able to get what they want off the peg. Those are the facts about nationalised industries.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: What about the multinationals?
  Mr. Heath: During my time as Prime Minister and when I was at the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour I never experienced a multinational which refused to co-operate with the Government. What is more, many of the multinationals have stood this country in good stead in times of war.
  The demand by the nationalised industries for investment capital already hamstrings the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial policy and financial management, because he knows that with such massive units it is difficult to change anything with any rapidity. Why hamstring the Chancellor of the Exchequer still further and have massive demands which further nationalised industries will make on the Exchequer, apart from the cost of buying them—which presumably will be the case—and the inflationary effect of that?
  The nationalised industries themselves, being such massive units, find the utmost difficulty in having an adequate system of financial control within their own organisation. They are cumbersome and slow-moving in their decision-taking, and

  701
  the whole process is compounded by the fact that they have to act in concert with the Treasury.
  Those are the facts of life. Those working on the boards of management of nationalised industries are doing their best to cope with the problems but, many of these problems, by their nature, have still not been dealt with, and nobody can see how they will be, and that must be a major argument against the extension which the Secretary of State wants to bring about.
  Who can argue that industrial relations in many of the large nationalised industries are satisfactory? One reason why they are not is the massive size of the units and the remoteness—
  Mr. Ashton: And Government interference.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman blames Government interference; yet this House is constantly being pressed for further Government and parliamentary control over nationalised industries. If the hon. Gentleman does not want Government interference, he should tell his right hon. Friend to give it up and not nationalise industries.
  The other fact is that a nationalised industry has no negotiating position in any of these problems, because the other side knows that it can say "Away with you. We will go to the Government of the day", and it goes to the Minister, be it the Secretary of State for Employment or the Treasury Minister or, as it used to be, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and now either Trade or Industry. Those who run these massive and remote units know that in any event those with whom they are negotiating will always sweep them to one side and demand to go to the Minister or the Government, and yet this House is constantly pressed for that situation to be developed.
  Let us consider the consumer side of the matter. It may have been idealistic at one time, but does anybody now believe that consumers feel that the nationalised industries belong to them? Do the tormented commuters feel that the railways on which they are being disorganised belong to them? Does the housewife who finds the power switched off believe that the power stations belong
  702
  to her? Does anybody believe that the consumer councils represent what the consumer wants? What connection is there between consumer councils for nationalised industries and the ordinary citizen? These, too, are remote, and these are the problems of the nationalised industries about which we never hear from Government Members.
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have sufficient experience, knowledge and intelligence to know that those are the real problems. Why, then, are they proposing to go ahead with proposals such as these? It can only be because, above all, they are greedy for power for the sake of power over industry. That is the basic demand of the Secretary of State.
  The Government have at the moment launched this attack against British industry and it has shattered confidence and destroyed prospects for future jobs through affecting investment. It has now inflicted a complete planning blight across the whole face of industrial Britain.
  In the past 20 years we have seen this all too often. The steel industry was a massive example in which, because of the constant threat of nationalisation, it did not go for the investment which it ought to have gone for, and the whole country has been suffering from that ever since—
  The Prime Minister: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not denationalise any of the industries he has been speaking about, with the exception of the Carlisle State pubs?
  Mr. Heath: There were other industries which we denationalised—but we did not denationalise in other cases for the simple reason that to do so again brings conflict in industry, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is doing with free enterprise industry today. He has launched war against free enterprise industry
  The industrial policy of the Labour Party has been the curse of Britain for 25 years. Let the House show in the vote tonight that the country wants no more of it.
  4.31 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to

  703
  the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recalling that subsidies paid to private companies by the previous Government, coupled with State intervention, did not correct the long term problems of British industry, failed to sustain investment, and ended in a collapse of confidence, believes that the time has come to re-examine the working of the mixed economy and to seek ways to improve production and exports, raise investment and provide more jobs in Scotland, Wales and the English regions; and supports the Statement by the Prime Minister on 12th March in the Debate on the Address on the Government's intention in respect of the forthcoming Industry Bill and the National Enterprise Board'.
  This is the first time that the House has had an opportunity of discussing the industrial situation and the Government's industrial strategy in this Parliament. It is also the first time that there has been an opportunity to discuss the proposed Industry Bill, and the National Enterprise Board and the planning agreements system.
  However, before passing to these subjects, which are central to our debate, perhaps I should say to the Leader of the Opposition that it was significant to me, listening to his speech, that, bearing in mind that he occupied the high office of Prime Minister for almost four years, he found no time to describe the contribution which he made to any of the problems now confronting the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman made no reference whatever—one wonders how long his memory may be—to the inheritance of the three-day week or to the fact that when we came to power we found his policies of confrontation and war upon workers in industry which had led to the most tragic collapse of confidence which we have had in British industry since the war. If the right hon. Gentleman appeared, as many thought, to be out of touch with reality when he was Prime Minister, he has certainly proved today that he is still unready to face the reality of the consequences of his own policy—
  Mr. Heath: There was no confrontation with our Government. If the right hon. Gentleman consults the leaders of the trade union movement who took part in the talks with me they will tell him that there was no confrontation by our Government. The confrontation was with one union only, at that union's insistence,
  704
  because it was not prepared to accept the arrangements laid down by Parliament.
  Regarding the three-day week, the present Prime Minister has paid tribute to the fact that the three-day week showed that British industry during that period greatly increased its production proportionately. Trade union leaders and employers will tell the right hon. Gentleman that fact, and they will ask him why they cannot still further achieve an increase in times of full working. The breakdown of confidence came later with the present Government.
  Mr. Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman is now producing a new argument for the three-day week and saying that it proved what British industry could do under difficult circumstances, he must be even more out of touch with the reality of the situation. Not only were 1½ million workers temporarily stopped during that period, but he ran up administration costs of £1 million for the Department of Trade and Industry alone and did enormous damage to industrial confidence and investment. It is true that the settlement after the change of Government created a sense of well-being because people saw these immediate problems dealt with.
  However, I want today to invite the House to look at the more deep-seated problems which have confronted industry in one form or another since the war and which should properly lead Ministers of both parties who have had responsibility for these matters to consider in which direction we should go.
  The plain truth is that Britain has suffered a relative industrial decline over a long time under Governments of both parties. If the claim and forecasts which led to a rebuke being administered to Lord Rothschild, or the claim or forecasts of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), in one of his speeches at the time of the General Election, are correct, this country is faced with the prospect of a continued relative industrial decline.
  Figures which I shall give to indicate this spread over the record of a number of Governments. Let us take, for example, the average annual growth of manufacturing output from 1953 to 1971. The figures are—for the United Kingdom

  705
  3 per cent., for France 6½ per cent., for Italy 7½ per cent., for Germany 7½ per cent., and for Japan 14½ per cent.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley) rose—
  Mr. Benn: If I may be allowed to continue to give some figures, I shall take next the average annual growth of manufactured exports, by volume, in the period 1954 to 1972. The figures are United Kingdom 4 per cent., France 9½ per cent., Germany 10½ per cent., Italy 16½ per cent., and Japan 17 per cent.
  If we next take the ratio of imports of manufactures to exports of manufactures over a 10 year period, we find that in 1964 the figure was 57 per cent.—nearly twice as much exported as imported—and it is now 90 per cent. or only 10 per cent. more exported than imported.
  Further, if we take investment per employee in manufacturing—that is, the amount of horsepower, machinery and equipment behind the average British worker—we find that in 1971 there was £250 worth of investment behind the average worker in the United Kingdom, while in Germany the figure was £400, in Japan £500, in France £600, and in the United States £700.
  If we look at the basic statistics and figures over a long period we find that a mixed economy, in the way in which it has been operating, and in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman sought to defend it in his speech, has not brought to the people of this country the results which they might otherwise have had—
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has given the House a vastly impressive catalogue of the great success of the truly free enterprises in the world's economies.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the magnitude of the problems facing us. These problems have extended over a prolonged period. They have had their impact on the people of this country and have contributed in part to the acute and chronic regional unemployment problem in Scotland, in Wales, on Merseyside, in the North and now even in the Midlands. During the last period of high unemployment there was some anxiety in the Midlands about the future there. The unemployment figures published today, for June 1974, still indicate that we
  706
  have been unable to solve—not for lack of effort and attention—the disparity in unemployment between the South-East, for which today's figure is 1·5 per cent. and, for example, the North, with a latest figure of 4·4 per cent.
  These problems go back for a long time. The record does not give very much encouragement to a belief in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments about his capacity to improve industrial investment. Industrial investment fell by 17 per cent. in the first two years in which he held office. It never recovered. By the time he left office, investment was back to the 1970 level, when he assumed office.
  He and his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, have made many speeches about the need to encourage people to invest. He must know very well that the boom which his Cabinet tried to produce to break through these problems came up against capacity limitations by the autumn of last year, because of the failure to invest in British industry, before the impact of the higher oil prices began to be felt.
  The picture I paint is gloomy. I believe that unless we are able to change the prospects in some way, the forecasts which have been given may be correct in that we may be led into graver difficulties. It is not for any lack of trying. The right hon. Gentleman was at one time President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. All Governments over the period since the war have attempted to correct these underlying problems.
  There have been many disagreements on important items of policy, but in general during this period there has been the development of policy on the simple and clear pattern that the basic industries brought into public ownership should be re-equipped by the community which owned them. If we consider the figures for public investment, since 1951 in the public corporations—such as mines, railways and electricity—we shall see that some £24,000 million has been invested in re-equipping these industries. Similarly, Governments have accepted that what is sometimes called in the jargon the social infrastructure—that is to say local authority and central Government expenditure, which impacts very much

  707
  on the capacity of investment to improve its own performance—must be improved, and this has led to investment over the same period of about £35,000 million.
  This has been a great contribution to our industrial capability because industry depends upon this infrastructure. If we add to that the fact that nationalised industries have been running at a loss, very often as a result of Government policy, we get a subsidy that has come through the provision of nationalised industry services at below cost for private manufacturing and for the benefit of private manufacturing industry. If freight fares are below their true cost, or telephone or electricity charges are below the true cost, then some of this benefit feeds into private manufacturing industry.
  As to manufacturing itself, it has been left very largely in the private sector. There has been some financing of innovation by Government. I will give examples from two industries in which there has been public expenditure on innovation. Over the four-year period beginning in 1968–69 and ending in 1972–73, the aircraft industry received £766 million in this way, and the nuclear industry about £228 million. In certain areas, where the Government of the day thought it necessary to carry risks or to promote development, substantial sums of public money have been used.
  But in the private sector there has been another tendency which we are bound to notice. That is the steady development of monopoly in private manufacturing industry. Nearly half of the manufacturing now done in Britain is done by 100 companies. In making my own inquiries about the top 20 of these companies, the figures I have been given show that these own 4,000 companies in Britain today.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that nationalised industries are big and suffer from the problems of remoteness of management, yet there must be millions of people working in private manufacturing industry in Britain today who do not even know the name of the company that owns the company in which they work.
  I come to the question of Government grants—
  Mr. Heath: First of all, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's general
  708
  monopoly conclusions. In any case, the machinery for dealing with monopolies exists and has existed under many Governments. If he wants, he can use it. How can these companies of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks be monopolies in a European Economic Community in which tariffs disappear and we are open to competition from all?
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman should address his mind to the point I made, that half of manufacturing output in Britain today is controlled by 100 companies. The phrase I used was that there was a tendency to monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman gave to these companies their first legislative definition—Category 1 firms. Aneurin Bevan, in more romantic language, had called them the commanding heights of the economy. They remained entrenched in Labour rhetoric until the right hon. Gentleman thought them so important that he provided special arrangements to control their prices and profits under his own Counter-Inflation Act. It is no good his saying that this does not represent an important development in private manufacturing industry.
  If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Government grants to private industry, which have come from Governments of both parties and in many categories, he will find that the amount of subvention to private industry for purposes which the House accepted—regional policy or innovation or whatever—has been mounting steadily and rose under his Government, taking the four-year period as a whole, to the figure of some £3,000 million—£2 million a day. If the House is not entitled to take account of this in examining its own future industrial strategy without crude political abuse entering into the argument, then it will not be able to examine why we have done so badly and how we must do better.
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that intervention is itself a controversy between the parties. The legislation which he introduced, the Counter-Inflation Act and other legislation, brought to the private sector a greater degree of detailed interference than had ever occurred even from the National Government during wartime. I have brought with me four sections from his Acts. I will read them to him because

  709
  he might possibly not have been aware of what was going through under his premiership.
  Let us take first—and I could have taken examples from a number of Acts—Section 19 of the National Insurance Act. It says:
  "The Secretary of State may require a company to furnish at specified times or intervals with information about specified matters being, if he so requires, information verified in a specified matter."
  That is not from a commissar but from a Conservative Government. They intervened. Let me give another example:
  "The Secretary of State may require a company to take such action as appears to him to be appropriate for the purposes of protecting policy holders."
  That is the right hon. Gentleman's National Insurance Act. Let us take the question of the relations between the Secretary of State and private industry:
  "The Secretary of State shall not issue under Section 61 of the Act of 1967 an authorisation with respect to an incorporated company if it appears to him that any controller or manager of the company is not a fit and proper person to be associated with the company."
  Those are not the words of a commissar; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman in his own legislation.
  Let us take as another example the Counter-Inflation Act:
  "The Minister may by order direct that—

  (a) any provision of any Act, whether passed before this Act or later, which relates to prices, charges or to remuneration or other terms or conditions of employment, or

  (b) any provision having effect under any Act…shall while this Part of this Act is in force, have effect subject to such exceptions, modifications or adaptations as may be specified in the order."

  That was the right hon. Gentleman's legislation, not the legislation of a Labour Government.
  I take next the commanding heights of the economy. Listen to the right hon. Gentleman's own Price and Pay Code. Paragraph 6 reads:
  "For the purpose of control all companies whose main activity is in manufacturing will be divided into three categories."
  Is that the ravings of Transport House, or is it the managerial view of the Leader of the Opposition? It is the latter, of course.
  710
  The plain truth is that intervention is not controversial between the parties. What matters is for what purpose we intervene, how we intervene, what accountability to Parliament there is for the intervention, and in whose interests we intervene. For the right hon. Gentleman to pretend, for the purpose of his public posture, that the pressure for intervention is a social one when he intervenes consistently in the interests of those whom he supports in society is to mislead the public, who must come to terms with the realities of industrial policy.
  Mr. John Gorst: On the other hand, will not the right hon. Gentleman admit—indeed, he has gone some way to admitting it by using the phrase "the purposes of intervention"—that what matters is the fact that there is no dictatorship in the world which has not had nationalisation as an adjunct to dictatorship? This is the problem that we are fighting.
  Mr. Benn: I ought not to have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. What were the two last great acts of public ownership in this country? They were Rolls-Royce and Govan Shipbuilders. Both were brought into public ownership by the Conservative Party.
  Let us now get beyond the absurd simplicities of the Leader of the Opposition, who is always on the hustings, and come down to examine what is the real question confronting Britain. Does this system of subsidy and intervention work in the national interest? The answer is, "No". Has it produced the results for which it was intended? Again, the answer is, "No".
  We have been told to face the facts. The fact is that our mixed economy is not working properly for the purposes for which, to some extent, there is agreement between the two sides of the House in terms of investment, regional policy and a healthy balance of payments.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the first cases of intervention which he cited are particular to any President of the Board of Trade, as it was and later Secretary of State, to ensure that people concerned with financial matters are of proper standing. That is a perfectly seemly thing to do. It does not

  711
  deal with the detailed affairs of the company or the financial institutions. Secondly, dealing with his argument about Rolls-Royce and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Rolls-Royce found the burden which he placed upon it of the 211 too great to bear, and we had to take the consequences of that, as we did with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders as well.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman continued the support both for Rolls-Royce and for Upper Clyde Shipbuilders for a long period before driving both of them into bankruptcy.
  I understand the special case of the insurance companies. Who would not after the recent cases? But is there any reason why, if a company is failing the interests of its workers, it should not find Government interest attaching to it as it would if it fails its policy holders? Why is it that the interests of those whose livelihood depends on the companies should be exempt from any Government interest, whereas in the case of the insurance companies, this power should be exercised?
  I come then to the policy of the Labour Party. At least the right hon. Gentleman will grant me that the Labour Party makes no attempt to conceal its thinking about future policy. It has always been ready to discuss it in the open. Anyone who follows these matters will have followed them in the 1972 programme: the discussions with the TUC, our statement published in February last year, the programme in 1973, the ship-building policy published in the summer, and the manifesto. The House knows that the discussion within the Labour Party about future policy is always very open, and although accounts are not necessarily accurate of what goes on in individual policy committees, there is full coverage of the discussion.
  I said in the only speech that I have made in this Parliament until today that I saw it as my job to implement the policy on which we were elected—an idea which is quite reasonable for an incoming Minister.
  Let us look at the difference between the policy making of the two parties. I take first the aircraft industry. We said in our programme that we would bring it into public ownership. It has received
  712
  about £555 million of public support over the past four years. We put that in our manifesto. I was asked about it in this House, and I confirmed our election intent. I had informal talks with the SBAC and the trade unions.
  Compare that with the way that the right hon. Gentleman's policy developed for the aircraft industry. His Government decided before the election to bring about a private merger between BAC and Hawker Siddeley. He did not tell the House. He did not discuss it with the unions. He sought to bring it about privately.
  I have before me a letter dated 4th February addressed to a well-known firm of chartered accountants about this operation of bringing BAC and Hawker Siddeley together. The letter is significant for two reasons. The first is that here was a major piece of Government policy for the aircraft industry being brought forward without consultation with anyone. It is significant, secondly, because in writing to this distinguished chartered accountant, the Department said:
  "Your remuneration will be at the current rate for your professional services for each day devoted to the consultancy. This rate is £24 an hour or £168 for a working day."
  The letter is dated 4th February 1974. While the Leader of the Opposition was going round the country denouncing the miners for their wage claims, he was offering a single chartered accountant £168 a day to do a study of the aircraft industry, without any statement to Parliament.
  Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if a Government Department employs a professional man, it should pay him at other than the professional rates? That appears to be what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The Department is right to say that he will be paid at the normal professional rate for his services. How else can a Government get the service of professional men?
  Secondly, if there are discussions between firms and the Government, the right hon. Gentleman knows that they are conducted on terms of commercial confidence. That is the only basis again on which a Government can act. Indeed, many of his hon. Friends pressed me constantly when I was Prime Minister to

  713
  ensure that commercial confidence was maintained. The right hon. Gentleman is now quoting a private letter from the Department in the era of another administration. I should like to know what justification he has for doing that.
  Mr. Benn: I have not given the name of the firm. If this House is to debate the difference between our policy making and that of the Conservative Party, it is important to recognise that in the policy making that we are undertaking we are doing it openly, in consultation with those affected, and not secretly. The matter of the money only draws attention retrospectively to the difference in standards between the amount paid to a chartered accountant, which is probably the standard fee, and the amount which the Leader of the Opposition was ready to see paid to working people under his pay policy.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue what he likes about the various ways of policy making under given administrations. But he is not entitled to make a general accusation against a professional servant employed by the Government by quoting a particular letter, or to reveal discussions in commercial confidence with a previous administration. There is no justification for that. His advisers in the Department are in error if they have allowed him to see a previous administration's documents, let alone to quote them in Parliament.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will not get away with it like that. The plain truth is that the previous Government sought a solution—I am not commenting whether the policy was right or not—to the problem of the aircraft industry without any statement to the House of Commons and without any consultation whatever with the workers who would be involved and do the job at a rate which is probably not the going rate for chartered accountants. That was in marked contrast to his appeals for restraint at a time when the country was being forced on to a three-day working week as a result of his pay policy.
  Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance on this matter? If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a docu
  714
  ment, should it not be made available to the House or, alternatively, the whole matter withdrawn?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I understand that unless a direct quotation is made from a document—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] Order. Unless the document is read out—
  Hon. Members: It was.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, it was. Let us have it. We must have it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for me at the moment. If the document is as confidential as has been outlined—
  Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State quoted from the document. He purported to read from it. He still has not answered or tried to give any justification for producing a document from a previous administration which he is not entitled to see and is certainly not entitled to quote publicly. I should like to know what possible justification there can be for doing that. The head of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is completely ill-advised if he has allowed him to do so. The head of the Civil Service and the Secretary to the Cabinet ought to inquire into it.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that relations between the Government and third parties do not come in the category of papers that pass between officials and Ministers in a previous administration. He knows that in negotiations which occur between the Government and third parties separate rules apply.
  Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help now as I have the advantage of Erskine May, which, on page 421, states: I understand that it was a private letter.
  "The rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a technical but very important matter. There is some question whether

  715
  this is a private letter or, because it is from a Department, a public document. Would it not be more helpful to the House if you were to take as much time as you think necessary to consider the matter and, when you have had time to reflect—I think that everyone would like you to have time to reflect because it is an important matter—then to give your ruling to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the House will feel that that is the wisest solution.
  Mr. Benn: I now come to the policies, which I should outline briefly, which the Government have in mind to put before the House after full consideration. They are that, in the circumstances that I have described and against the background that I have outlined, it is necessary for us to have an instrument which would be capable of doing better in solving many of the problems that I have described than in the past.
  I am referring to the National Enterprise Board whose contributions would lie in the area of promoting investment and, indeed, in getting more jobs into regions of high unemployment. I am referring also to the planning agreement which would allow the Government and the firms, particularly the category I firms, to lay their strategies side by side to see how community needs could be met.
  There are precedents for all these matters. The letters exchanged between the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the chairman of Rolls-Royce, which were not published at the time but have since been published in HANSARD, identified exactly the pattern of planning agreement between Rolls-Royce, and the Government of the day which might form a pattern for our thinking on these matters.
  We are saying that in thinking about these deep-seated problems we may conclude that fundamental changes are needed to correct them. If these fundamental changes are to work, they must have consent. The one lesson that we may have learned—indeed, I think that most people should have learned it from the experience of the previous Government with the lesson of the Industrial
  716
  Relations Act—is that in the industrial sphere we cannot put a statute in the statute book and expect it to work without consent.
  As I made absolutely clear in the first speech that I made on this subject in the new Parliament, we are not seeking confrontation with British management. We are seeking a debate about problems that have not been resolved over a prolonged period. We are seeking a wide measure of agreement about the nature of the problems and about the way in which they might best be tackled.
  We are putting forward policies which we have worked out and in which we believe. I warn the Opposition that, if they suppose that those policies will be electorally advantageous to them, they must offer some alternative policies. I suggest that no one hearing the right hon. Gentleman today would believe that he had any answer to the problems that are common between both sides of the House, for at least we share the nation's problems. He has not put forward an alternative. We believe that executives as well as workers in industry and those who live in Scotland and Wales and the regions, will look with sympathy and approval on the proposals that we have been publicly advocating.
  This country can do better than it has done. The three-day working week taught us that there is a reserve of production that we have not yet been able to tap. We must do better than the present forecasts indicate.
  I believe that our policies will command support. I invite the House to support us tonight. If not, in due course we shall gain that support from the British people and come back able to carry our policies into effect.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Secretary of State for Industry, in his speech today and in the "trailer" that he gave yesterday to the AUEW conference, appeared to be speaking from the heart with the fervour of an old-style Socialist setting out to remedy just grievances and to put forward proposals in the national interest. But the cold and mechanistic policies that underlie his speech come only from the head. In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman has shown that his head, so far from being

  717
  thick, as has sometimes been suggested, might better be regarded as the thin edge of a Marxist wedge. He is using the language and arguments of democratic Socialism to put forward and to justify—and indeed, to conceal—purely collectivist policies, policies which have not been accepted by the electorate and which have raised doubts in the minds of some of his right hon. and lion. Friends, and which I hope will be firmly rejected by the House this evening.
  The right hon. Gentleman says in the amendment and in his speech that he wants to take a fresh look at the working of a mixed economy. So do I. He criticised free competitive enterprise for a growing tendency to monopoly. I would not disagree with him in that. But his proposals are not a fresh look; nor, indeed, are they directed against monopoly. He said that he was seeking agreement. But what he is seeking is the agreement of the House and, apparently, of the country to a stale formula of more nationalisation, with greater State intervention in the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking, in other words, more bureaucracy in large industries, which in many cases are already too bureaucratic to be enterprising. He is also seeking to extend that into the smaller industries, which are now prevented from exercising their natural enterprise only by the policies of the present Government and the fears for the future that those policies engender. The new, or relatively new, idea of appointing union officials as directors will not help. All that that will do is to add yet another element of bureaucracy—the bureaucracy of the unions.
  We on the Opposition side of the House accept that Government intervention in industry is necessary. That has been part of Tory philosophy throughout the ages. Of course we accept that legislation is required. Indeed, the Conservative Party has never been the party of laissez-faire economics, from the days of Disraeli onwards. We accept that legislation is required to frame the conditions in which industrialists and businessmen operate. We believe it is required to frame the conditions in which trade unions and their leaders operate, too. But most of the plans that the right
  718
  hon. Gentleman is putting forward are irrelevant as well as divisive.
  I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the seriousness of the position of British industry is basically right. But there are very complex problems and complex difficulties. The object of the right hon. Gentleman is to make them seem simple, so that his simplistic remedies can apply and that he can take control away from the workers, from people and from Parliament and concentrate it in the hands of the Government. If he were really seeking to deal with the problems of growing monopoly, he would turn his attention to company law and monopolies legislation in order to protect both customers and work-people. He would seek to ensure that directors exercise the responsibilities of ownership on behalf of their shareholders as well as protecting shareholders' rights. He would be putting forward proper measures for employee participation that can give management and work-people a greater say in the affairs of their company and a greater stake in its success.
  But the Government have rejected that concept. They rejected it when they rejected our amendment to the Finance Bill, which sought to spread share ownership more widely through its linking with the Own-As-You-Earn scheme.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Macmillan: When the Secretary of State says that he wishes to alter the balance of power and wealth, he means that he wants to centralise it in the hands of officials—Government officials and trade union officials. He and his colleagues would use wealth for the people rather than spread it into their hands, leaving the people the choice as to how that wealth should best be used. He would use power for the people rather than passing power back to the people to use themselves. This may be Socialist, but it is certainly not democratic.
  The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that of an over-possessive mother who continues to make decisions for her children after they have grown up and can well make them for themselves. In the words of the television advertisement, the right hon.

  719
  Gentleman appears to think that "Mother knows best."
  Of course I agree that it is intolerable that people should feel themselves at the mercy of forces which they do not understand, that their destinies at work—whether they are management or work-people, at any level—are controlled by groups which they do not know and which they cannot identify, and that they are being manipulated for reasons outside their own interest and understanding. That is true whether these groups are of capital or of labour, and whether it is the selfishness of financiers or of trade union leaders that is causing this manipulation.
  The Secretary of State suggested that a framework of law was required for the operations of the capitalist system. I agree. I wish that he and his colleagues would see the trade unions as part of that system, a part which also should operate within a framework of law. I quite agree, too, that company law and consultation between management and work-people is not, in itself, enough, and that we need a greater degree of employee participation. But that means all employees—junior management, foremen, those on the shop floor or in the office. It means all the staff—not simply the union leaders but all employees—taking an active part in the affairs of the companies for which they work, at all levels. If it is to be at boardroom level too, it must be by persons elected by the representatives of those working in the firms concerned and not simply by officials appointed by union headquarters.
  I would not deny the rôle of the trade unions collectively. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition accepted this rôle of the unions as a group in his tripartite discussions with the CBI and the TUC. I would go further, perhaps, than he would, and consider whether we should not find some method of formalising or even institutionalising the rôle of industry in the management of the economy and the consultation between the employers and the unions concerned. In other words, I should like a fresh look to be taken at the working of our mixed economy, going a little beyond saying "It did not work before, so now we shall make it purely Socialist." I should like a closer look to be taken at the part
  720
  that should be played in a modern industrial society by the different elements that go to make up the great complexity of our industry, commerce, business and finance.
  The problem is how to reconcile the increasingly inhuman demand for efficiency in modern industry with the human aspirations of those who work in it. I have never believed, and neither has any member of the Conservative Party, that the answer lies in laissez-faire economics which try to make man fit the machine. Yet that is just what the Secretary of State is trying to do. He is not trying to fit his theories, ideas or policies to the needs of people; he is trying to get people to agree to be fitted into his own dogmas and doctrine. He is trying to get agreement with the neo-Marxist policies that he conceals, perhaps from himself as well as from other people, by the Democratic-Socialist language that he uses.
  I hope that the House will reject the Amendment and in doing so commit itself to taking a new look, yes, but a look at the mixed economy, an economy which will remain mixed and not be dominated by the theories and dogmas of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): May I now quickly give the ruling which the House was kind enough to give me time to consider?
  The rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. It is also stated in Erskine May, in the light of earlier rulings, that the rule applies to public documents only and not to documents of a confidential nature. Taking all these matters into consideration, I have come to the view that the document cited by the Secretary of State is not one to which the rule applies.
  Mr. Moonman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As there is so little time for back benchers to do justice to the debate—less than an hour—is it possible for you to advise all speakers to keep their remarks to, say, five minutes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is just three-quarters of an hour left for back benchers. That will no doubt be borne in mind.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the matter on which you have ruled is of some constitutional importance as well as being a matter of good manners. I should be grateful if you could make available to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is to speak later from the Opposition Front Bench, the words which you have used, and I should be obliged if that could be done as soon as possible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly.
  Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order. Whilst in no way challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful if you would consider the fact that the Secretary of State spoke in such a way as to imply that it was not a private but a public document. Consequently, if that is the case and the right hon. Gentleman does not deny it, according to your ruling the document should surely be made available.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that the document did not come under the category of having to be laid.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The Conservative Party always has to invent a bogyman. There have been many examples in the post-war years. At the 1945 General Election it was Professor Harold Laski, then Chairman of the Labour Party. Then followed Mr. John Strachey. Scurrilous attacks were made over many years on the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan. There were Mr. Frank Cousins and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, the engineering workers' leader, and then a few months ago a practically unknown Scottish miners' leader, Mr. Mick McGahey, suddenly found fame thrust upon him.
  Now the attacks are concentrated on that great proletarian revolutionary leader, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. He must feel flattered. I have always thought him to be more in the line of Baden-Powell than Karl Marx. However, he has had the merit of spotlighting how much our so-called private enterprise system relies on State dole. The £2 million a day that my right hon. Friend mentioned is highly relevant in the context of our
  722
  discussion on the future of British industry. As my right hon. Friend also pointed out, it has amounted in the past four years to about £3,000 million. There have also been the disguised subsidies to which my right hon. Friend referred, particularly in the charging of lower prices by our nationalised industries—for coal, electricity, gas and telephones.
  My right hon. Friend, in the best Boy Scout tradition, believes that promises should be honoured. Labour's plans were made perfectly clear before and during the General Election.
  We all know too well that since the end of the Second World War this country's economy has been plagued by one crisis after another. There has been a perpetual conflict between private profit and the public good. There has been a distinct lack of investment in British industry. Instead, many millions of pounds have been invested overseas. The inefficiency of British industry has been characterised by excessive overtime working and a low-wage economy. Indeed, the criticism one could make of the British trade union movement is not that it has pursued its claims too radically but rather that it has made them too lightly.
  The aircraft, shipbuilding and machine tool industries would all be bankrupt tomorrow without State aid. Likewise, before they were taken into public ownership, the mines, the railways and the steel industry were all in a state of collapse and starved of investment. Despite these obvious inadequacies, some of our highly paid but incompetent captains of industry firmly believe in their omnipotence, and any attempts radically to restructure British industry are denounced as being almost treasonable.
  Nevertheless, much of British industry has been taken over by multinational companies, with control invariably resting on the other side of the Atlantic. With the philosophy of the CBI, mergers and take-overs of that kind can go on without that body batting an eyelid, but when the British people, through their elected Government, wish to take a measure of control, all hell breaks loose.
  The whole position was summed up last week by Mr. David Basnet, the so-called moderate General Secretary of the

  723
  General and Municipal Workers Union. He said:
  "It is quite clear that in practice private enterprise left to itself has made Britain uncompetitive and has failed to provide secure employment."
  With those words I entirely agree. According to Mr. Ralph Bateman, the President of the CBI, Labour's plans endanger the whole economy and prosperity of our people.
  In practice what have the private enterprise buccaneers to offer in the years ahead? Reliable economic forecasts suggest that we shall soon have approximately 800,000 people unemployed, that prices are doubling every five years and that there will be a persistent huge trade deficit. In reality the captains of industry know all too well, even if Labour's plans are implemented to the full, that the main levers of economic power will still remain in their hands. Of course, Labour will need to spell out why changes are necessary. Those who oppose change should put forward intelligent arguments why things should remain as they are. They will want to do better than some of the clap-trap which has been poured out by Aims of Industry. Of course, the Conservative Party with its allies in big business and the Press will point out that Labour's plans for industry will lose Labour the next General Election, as if they wanted us to win anyway.
  The establishment of the National Enterprise Board together with an extension of public ownership is not a matter of dogma but a necessity if we are to solve our country's problems. It is vital for the regions—for example, Wales, Scotland and the North-East—because they have suffered long enough environmentally and through heavy unemployment as a result of the ravages of private enterprise.
  In the forthcoming General Election the question will inevitably arise of who governs Britain. The head of the CBI is reported as saying on 16th June that Labour's basic proposals in this sphere are not negotiable. Therefore, the Labour Party must put its case clearly and concisely to the British people. It is the people who must ultimately decide the issue. I feel pretty confident about their verdict.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Liberal Members believe that the House and the country have been ill served by those who arranged this debate. Those who would wish to develop some constructive thoughts are restricted to an absurdly short time. That is especially so when we deduct from the time available the long periods which have been used by both Front Benches to lay various smokescreens. The most absurd smokescreen was the letter to the chartered accountant.
  I shall try to bring the House back to the document which is at the nub of this debate—namely, the document released towards the end of May by the Secretary of State for Industry entitled "The Current Work Programme of the Department of Industry". Beneath that rather innocuous title there is a description in vague although verbose terms of the Planning Agreements, the National Enterprise Board and the proposals for specific industries to be taken into national ownership.
  The document as a whole would outline an interesting experiment if it had been proposed for a country thousands of miles away from Britain, which was securely in possession of its own feeding resources, which had within its borders all the fuel and power necessary to keep itself at work, to fuel its industries and to supply them with raw materials. But for this country in its present economic, geographical and political state, the Liberal Party regard the document as highly irresponsible. We cannot understand the Government taking the pride which they pretend to take in releasing it in the interests of open discussion.
  There is a lot to be said these days for fostering open discussion provided that all the realities and all the facts are laid before the public. But to publish a document in such mysterious outline at such a difficult time in our economic history is bound to produce a lack of confidence and a great deal of bewilderment—and so it has. Furthermore, it is irresponsible because it takes no account of the hard facts of the political situation. It proceeds as though somebody has a mandate for 10 or 15 years of Socialism of some brand or other, that plans can be laid and that staff of high quality could be

  725
  attracted. That is a very difficult thing to do in this country.
  The document suggests that we can proceed on the basis that a long-term plan can genuinely and sincerely be envisaged in the light of our domestic political situation. As a matter of fact, that is not the case. There is no mandate at present for any Government to introduce any dogmatic policies. There is no likelihood that a scheme of this sort would necessarily have a long life, bearing in mind Britain's political frame of mind.
  I break off to emphasise the difficulty regarding staff. The National Enterprise Board may or may not be a magnificent concept. It will be clear tonight what view the Liberals take. But even supposing it were a splendid concept which would meet our needs, how can the Secretary of State suppose in the present domestic political situation that he will get the necessary host of people of ability, experience, confidence and public reputation to staff his National Enterprise Board?
  Dr. Colin Phipps: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the staff of the IRC under the previous Labour Government was of the highest quality and was easily recruited?
  Mr. Wainwright: I considered that and I have two points to put in reply. First, the task of the IRC was minuscule compared with the task that is proposed for the National Enterprise Board. The task of the IRC, from which the Liberals did not completely dissent—indeed, we congratulated it on much of its work—was to engineer certain mergers and the restructuring of industry. Having done that, it largely retired from the scene. However, even with that small task compared with that projected for the National Enterprise Board, it cannot truthfully be stated that the IRC attracted more than a handful of people of manifest ability. Further, there were some weak links in its personnel.
  Another astonishing fact about the Secretary of State's document is that it should propose further nationalisation without the modest humility of commenting on the appalling mess which has still to be tackled, which the former Prime Minister tacitly admitted today was not tackled by his administration, and the confusion within our present
  726
  nationalised industries. For example, there is the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Secretary of State reeled off figures as though to suggest the mere spending of money on capital investment is sufficient as a token of enterprise and good management. It is not necessary to be a Yorkshireman to feel in one's bones that it is not the spending of large amounts of money which is crucial but the way in which the money is spent.
  No student of heavy industry or of power and energy could condone the Central Electricity Generating Board's absurd waste of money over the past 12 years under the supervision of successive administrations. Nobody as yet has seen fit to stop such waste and the appalling misapplication of large sums for which hard-working business men would give their eyes to be able to use in their productive businesses. No one can suppose that we have any claim to have the secret of knowing how to run nationalised industry. That alone, to my right hon. and hon. Friends, would be sufficient reason, even if there were not others, to call a halt to nationalisation, until somebody somewhere finds the secret of running vast industries which have already been taken into public ownership. It is in any case our view—and we think that we are supported in it by very large numbers of people in management and on the shop floor—that ownership is almost irrelevant these days to the question of a successful industrial undertaking.
  There might have been something to be said for the document if it could truthfully have been supplemented by a wealth of illustrations of apparent success of schemes of this sort in other, comparable industrially-developed nations. However, search as one will—even some of those mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—one is unable to find a manufacturing economy able to satisfy export customers in all parts of the world from the base of State-controlled manufacturing industry. It is easy to have successful schemes if one has a self-contained economy, but not otherwise.
  I am prepared to admit, although experience scarcely supports even this contention, that it is sometimes possible to support nationalisation of certain public utilities and public services, but I

  727
  hope that the country has been alerted to the fact that this document positively hope that the country has been alerted proposes nationalisation of manufacturing industry, which moves the whole turgid argument on nationalisation on to a very controversial plane. In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Industry, in spite of his wealth of statistics, did not even begin to make out a case for moving the concept of nationalisation into manufacturing as distinct from extractive and public service industries.
  I hope that, within the narrow time limits of the debate, I have made it plain that, although the Liberals are reluctant to be forced into a vote after such a short debate, we shall have no hesitation in supporting the motion—for once, refreshingly terse and concise and, I hope also, to some extent an expression of penitence for past misdeeds—which has been tabled by the Conservative part of the Opposition. It follows that we shall vote against the Government amendment.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall not attempt to follow the Liberal train of thought because we are short of time.
  It is strange that in this House it is not yet generally realised that three major factors are putting our industry into serious trouble. The first is the "them and us" complex, with all the bitterness between the two sides that that entails. The second is that we persist as a nation in putting £3,000 million a year into defence establishments, maintaining troops abroad and so on, instead of using the money for investment in industry for modernisation. The third is that the nationalised industries have been continually badly run and managed by successive Governments of both parties.
  When we in this House consider the Northern Ireland situation, where there is such bitter conflict between the two sides, we are all in favour of power sharing over there. But in industry, where there is also conflict between two sides, power sharing seems to be anathema. Whoever form the Government of the day, we seem to continue with the attitude that no one knows how best to run industry except the bosses in charge. I do not accept that. Fifty per cent. of my constituents work in nationalised industries. I have worked for the British
  728
  Steel Corporation and for private enterprise as well. There is a vast difference in attitude between employees of nationalised industries and employees of private enterprise.
  For example, there has never been conflict between the miners and Sir Derek Ezra. The conflict was between the miners and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because we are continually having economists, either in Whitehall or Parliament, telling us that the way to keep down wages is to start with the nationalised industries. We have seen successive Governments increasing investment in nationalised industries or cutting it back. They have been ploughing money in or pulling it out. They have used the nationalised industries in order to regulate the economy. The nationalised industries have been subjected to the worst form of stop-go in our industry.
  Does a man working in a nationalised industry suddenly become stupid or lose his skill or craft? Are his successes any the less? Of course not. The fact is that the productivity of nationalised industries has increased faster, according to reliable experts, than the productivity of private enterprise. Professor Hayek has shown that at a time when the productivity of nationalised industries rose by 4½ per cent., it rose in private enterprise by only 2 per cent.
  In the mining industry, a massive reduction of manpower was achieved, and very many pits were run down, with virtually no labour disputes. Compare that with Sir Arnold Weinstock's activities, which involve thousands of people in my union. One sees the difference. The operation in the nationalised industry was carried out with humanity and proper consultation, whereas in the case of Sir Arnold Weinstock's operation the attitude was that of the "weakest to the wall".
  Again, I hope that we can get to the stage when the Government and the economists will let the railways solve their problems—for example, by developing the land around King's Cross and a mile north of it, being able to build their own offices, renting out offices, and so on. If we allowed British Railways to exercise what are normal functions, we might find that they got on better.

  729
  Last year, the British Steel Corporation was compelled by the Conservative Government to sell its steel at £70 a ton. In Germany the price of steel was £87 a ton, and in France £84. The British industry could have made a massive profit, which would have gone into investment, had it not been prohibited from doing so by the then Government, who insisted that it keep prices down. It is this sort of activity which keeps our nationalised industries in trouble. They are always having to put up with third party interference.
  In many instances, the concept of nationalisation we have had in the past has been too clumsy, too much of a blunt instrument. We have taken over whole industries. For example, when we took over the steel industry, the taxpayers had to buy huge masses of scrap and many useless factories which no private business would buy.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Tuesday the Secretary of State for Industry was in Brussels talking to the commissioners about nationalising the remaining parts of the independent producers in the steel industry, or hindering or restraining them by using the influence of the BSC's pricing policy? Is that being fair to people?
  Mr. Ashton: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the man in Brussels said, "You cannot do it in the Common Market", which is as good an example as any of how we have given away our freedom by going into the EEC.
  Again, there is the attitude of private enterprise towards investment—an attitude which everyone on the shop floor quickly gets to know. When the firm is making a profit, the attitude is that it does not need to buy new machinery; when it is not making a profit, it cannot afford to buy new machinery. I worked on the shop floor for 10 years and on numerous occasions went to the foreman to complain, "This machine is breaking down", or "Give me better tools". There was always an excuse for not providing them, both in good years and bad. When he took office in 1970, the right hon. Member for Sidcup gave massive tax cuts to private enterprise, thinking that it would put the money back into industry in the form of investment. It
  730
  did not do so. It ploughed the money into many things, but not back into industry. We have to have some instrument of government not the clumsy mechanism of nationalising a whole industry, which takes a year anyway and means that the State has to take over hundreds of plants and factories; what we need is selective nationalisation, not of an industry but of a company which is perhaps in an area of unemployment, or is under threat of take-over or merger by someone such as Slater Walker or Sir Arnold Weinstock. There was a case in Ealing which was mentioned in the House concerning the Rockware firm which was making a profit. The workers and the management were happy until a giant swallowed it up and closed it down because the land on which it stood was worth more than the company as a going concern to the firm that was taking it over.
  Are the workers in these industries to sit back and accept all this or should they lobby the House and insist that their factory is nationalised? I do not know whether Conservative Members ever meet lobbies that come to this House. Invariably they consist of workers, often at a high level, who ask us when we are going to stop this closure of factories by some instrument of nationalisation. There is such a procedure in other countries. In Italy, Alfa Romeo is State-owned. The Italian Government has a holding in a motorway building firm and in shipbuilding. In Israel there are 116 companies in which the State has made an intervention. In Sweden there is a national enterprise board called the Statsföretag. Thirty firms are involved, ranging from tobacco, beer, banks, catering and shipbuilding. Belgium, Canada, Australia and France also have a system of selective nationalisation.
  Last year, along with other hon. Members, I went to Japan as a guest of the Japanese Government. We visited Toyota and we tried to discover why that firm produced cars more cheaply and without the strikes or other problems that confront our motor car industry. The answer is simple. The Japanese worker invests 20 per cent. of his wages with the firm for which he works. At the age of 55 he gets the sack and he does not get an old age pension until he is 65, which leaves him

  731
  with a ten-year gap when the money is not coming in. He saves and invests in his company while he is at work and that stops him from going on strike because he has a vested interest in the company.
  Of course, the workers in this country would never stand for being given the sack at 55, but if the workers and the unions were given an interest in the company for which they were working, and if they knew that the union leaders could have direct access to the Secretary of State for Industry or to their Labour or union MPs so that the Government would step in and stop any takeover, that would lead to a build up of trust, an end to the them and us attitude and the introduction of the sort of power sharing we want to see in Northern Ireland but which some hon. Members would not dream of introducing into industry. Given that, we might start to catch up with the other countries that are now ahead of us.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) say that he was against the wholesale nationalisation of industries, so I suppose that he will not be supporting the proposal to nationalise the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aviation industries. The other point he made concerned the workers who lobby the House and how many of them express concern for their jobs and want to be nationalised. Anyone who looks at the reduction in employment opportunities in the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation would not think that they were more secure places in which to work in recent years.
  I have an interest to declare in the debate, in that I have spent all my working life in industry including the management of a large factory. I declare that interest with some pride, because it gives me some qualification to speak in the debate. I must tell the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry that part of their activities in their previous incarnations was responsible for my presence in this House. I was a manager in a modern industry and I was conscious of the amount of involvement and intervention from Government and
  732
  Government Departments in the working of industry. I was acutely conscious, too, that a tremendous amount of that involvement and intervention was by people who had no understanding of how industry worked. Though I did not support the political views of the right hon. Gentlemen, I felt I was working in the interests of the country, but I was conscious that we were dividing our efforts and that we were not pulling in the same direction.
  I am sure that the Prime Minister, fresh from Scotland's efforts, recognises that those efforts were not achieved by a team divided against itself. Neither, I am sure, does the Secretary of State for Industry feel that Bristol Rovers got their promotion this year by arguing among themselves. The tragedy of this whole issue is that it is so divisive of the whole British industrial effort.
  I do not believe there is any dispute about the background to this debate. The amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and others of the unofficial Opposition, refers to Britain's economic performance, and we all recognise the need to optimise that in a very competitive world. It refers to the problems of low investment, poor productivity and export marketing. It talks about Britain's indifferent industrial performance, but that is an unfair generalisation. The performance is not indifferent. In some instances it is a splendid performance about which we are often not sufficiently proud. In other areas, however, it is inconsistent and it is towards the solution of that problem that the debate should be directed.
  The first thing the Prime Minster should do when he replies to the debate is to make clear the present standing of these proposals. On the one hand we are told by the Secretary of State for Industry that these are firm proposals, that this is what was in the Labour Manifesto, that the country has been told about them, and that it is what is going to happen. However, we read in the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends that the time has come "to re-examine". Are we reexamining or are we dealing with firm proposals?
  In reply to the President of the CBI the Secretary of State for Industry said that

  733
  this was the start of a great debate. Is this a great debate or has the debate already been decided and are the proposals which have been issued his firm commitments? This is an important point which could reassure many in industry. If the decision is already taken about the policy what is the justification for the Government's view? We have seen in their analysis of the problems that British industry faces, all the problems of performance in many areas. But we have had remarkably little evidence, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said, that the solutions proposed by the Government will contribute one jot or tittle to improving our performance. The evidence is very much to the contrary.
  The Secretary of State has conducted a most effective campaign and it has rubbed off on the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and others. The phrase "£2 million a day" has become stuck in many people's minds. This most misleading set of statistics is intended to give the impression that private industry is totally incapable and a cripple that needs propping up from all directions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is a foul slur on a great number of British companies because he knows that a lot of that public money is concentrated in relatively few sectors, in certain companies which pay no tax because they make no profits, but which for social reasons Governments have decided to support.
  There are many other highly efficient companies receiving very little Government support which make a considerable contribution to the social capital of this nation.
  The hon. Gentleman kindly sent me a copy of his May Day speech in Bristol. It would be difficult to imagine a more misleading presentation by the grouping together of the total figures for Government aid, for the corporation tax, and for dividends.
  Mr. John Garrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recipients of public funds should be publicly accountable?
  Mr. King: On the point concerning accountability, the hon. Gentleman was not in the House at that time, but he may know that I worked in the then Depart
  734
  ment of Trade and Industry in a very junior capacity. We introduced arrangements to publicise, under our Industry Act 1972, full reports on the workings of the Department and on the funds. I support the need for that.
  The tragedy in the present situation is that a solution which has been advanced, with no evidence that it is likely to solve the problems that we face, could be seen by many to be part of the problem we face. I was struck by an example last year where there was a severe outbreak of equine influenza. A serum was produced for inoculation to prevent that disease. The serum killed a considerable number of horses to which it was given.
  There is a very close parallel here. What is advanced as the cure may be very much worse than the disease from which we suffer.
  In a perceptive article my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) pointed out that perhaps the biggest problem we face is that industry has become a political football during the last 25 years. The uncertainty this has spread has done enormous damage to industry's plans, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted the damage done in this way to investment in the steel industry over a considerable period. I accept that there must be a close liaison between companies, banks, sources of finance, between unions and Government. There must be a close working relationship. There must be a partnership of trust. We live in a competitive world. We are up against other countries and other industries strongly backed by their Governments.
  The Secretary of State for Industry cited our poor performance. He cited other countries which had done better, which were exactly those countries where there has been that close working trust and relationship in their industrial activity between the banks, the companies, the unions and Governments. They have been working together as a team. Poor Great Britain Limited at this time has been arguing amongst itself. Its industry has become a political football. I wonder whether right hon. Gentlemen realise how much damage they do. At this minute a campaign is being run in the right hon. Gentleman's Department for yet more regional investment. It is the recipients of these investments who

  735
  are being pilloried by the right hon. Gentleman as cripples in need of State aid. How does the right hon. Gentleman think that people who read that advertisement will react when they read his speeches about companies in receipt of public money which will have to submit to public accountability and make themselves more liable to State control? Does he think that will encourage industrial investment in the regions?
  There is within his responsibility a need to encourage industry, both nationalised and private, in our mixed economy. The attempts he has made through his campaign to justify his own philosophies have done nothing to improve or enhance the standing of British industry in the eyes of the people in this country or abroad. I am proud of the companies in my constituency. Courtaulds and Clarks as two examples, are outstanding British companies. I ask hon. Members, are there not many companies within their constituencies, of which they are equally proud and which have excellent working relationships? Those are the companies pilloried by the right hon. Gentleman, whose statements are doing so much damage to the future investment position of this country.
  The right hon. Gentleman himself has proved my point. He has given, this week, £3,500,000 to one company, not on condition that it will be managed by a Government Department, but on condition that the investment is managed by another substantial British company, in which he has confidence.
  When he is faced with the realities of the situation that is the action he has to take. And yet his sweeping proposals spread right across the whole field of British industry, and his threats of Government intervention, in vague and in specific forms, are doing enormous damage.
  It is vital that the substantial reductions in investment which I know are imminent in many sectors, should be avoided, not merely in domestic investment but in inward investment.
  I therefore hope that the vote tonight will make clear that the elected representatives of this country are having no more nationalisation.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: I shall not follow the dangerous road taken by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), which is one of overstatement. It would take more pluck and time than I have.
  A very complex relationship between Government and industry has existed over the last 50 years. The partnership is frequently a reluctant one—never more so than at the outset of a period of Labour Government when, as is happening now, the full resources of the CBI. Aims of Industry, and similar organisations, are ranged to do battle with the Labour Government. I suppose the reaction is even more violent than usual this time because the Labour Party manifesto includes several schemes for increasing the degree of Government intervention, new company law, some degree of industrial democracy, an extension of public ownership, a national enterprise board and a planning agreement system.
  The Leader of the Opposition has made a drastic assault on these proposals this afternoon and on previous occasions. He has prophesied disaster in all directions. He has said, "Up to half of Britain's manufacturing capacity is brought under State control in all important respects," a prospect, which would, he says, be greeted with revulsion upon the part of the British public.
  My response to that is that it would be an excessive, even absurd exaggeration of Labour's intentions even for a Tory politician to say that. But the tragedy of the posturing of the Leader of the Opposition is that it seems that this is the ground he has chosen on which to fight the next General Election—"Benn, the bogyman of industry". It is even possible that the Tories could win an election fought on this ground, but it would be dishonourable victory, bringing politics into total disrepute and carrying in its train a further deterioration in industrial relations—an area in which the Leader of the Opposition has already failed and in which he will continue to fail unless he learns from his past mistakes, of which there are many.
  If one looks at the policy documents carefully one sees that there is nothing shattering about their proposals. There is a further danger that we on the

  737
  Government side face. To my right hon. Friend I say, in all sincerity, it is surely inadvisable to overstate the implications of some of these policies. He would be wise not to attribute to the policies, areas of authority and control which are neither possible nor even desirable. What are the elements of our industrial policy? There is the National Enterprise Board. Although there has been some misunderstanding about its relationship to the former IRC, it will nevertheless fulfil a key rôle in the restructuring and development of processes and industries. It will also include employment policies which surely need to be taken into account when looking at the restructuring of industry. That, I maintain, is good industrial sense.
  The extension of public ownership is aimed primarily at aircraft, shipbuilding and marine engineering industries. Those are the two main areas in which most of the investment already comes from Government and many of the products are sold to Government. To intervene on behalf of the State is good industrial sense.
  Then there is the question of consultation. The Department of Industry has already indicated that this is no more than a recognition of the realities of industrial life and like the moves of less secrecy in the Department's work, is a necessary improvement in communications, which should not be confused with a change in the responsibility for decision making. Certainly better communications are at least likely to lead to more realistic decisions. That, too, is good industrial sense.
  So it is not a revolution that Labour is planning for industry and it is an error to suggest that it is. The success of our industrial policy depends on a realistic attitude to what can be achieved. These important but relatively modest proposals which we are putting forward can be looked at again in the light of subsequent experience. I am not suggesting—I do not think that my right hon. Friend is, either—that they will immediately change the balance of power in industry. There is a place for free enterprise under Labour's plans. My right hon. Friend said in Bristol last week that the Government looked to the small and medium firms for real enterprise and initiative, and that he intended to
  738
  ensure that industrial policies did more to help the small business man.
  At a recent meeting of the Small Businessmen's Association which I and one or two other hon. Members attended, I found that the real despair of small businessmen was not about my right hon. Friend's policies. They were much more concerned about the way in which they were being gobbled up by the larger corporations, the way in which they found it extremely difficult to get finance, and the tough way the banks were dealing with them. It is extraordinary humbug for Conservative Members to say that the Government are the prime evil and cause of the small firms' anxiety.
  Industrialists are fond of defending their demands for self-regulation on the principle, once stated in the United States, that "what is good for General Motors is good for the USA". But there are two reasons why it does not follow that what is good for Britain's biggest companies, that which allows them to make the largest profits, is good for this country. The first difference between us and the United States is that many of Britain's largest companies are not ultimately accountable in Britain—wholly-owned subsidiaries of foreign international companies. I am not knocking them. I take the point about their value and contribution to the nation's resources. I am simply stating the facts about the way their decisions are made.
  The second reason is that if return to shareholders is the only criterion recognised by private enterprise, they may pursue a course of action wholly damaging to the economy.
  For example, Jim Slater of Slater Walker, recently announced that his company had sold off more than £50 million of assets and intended to sell more because the cash loaned on a short-term basis at 15 per cent. gave a better return for less risk than actively engaging in manufacture. If that example were followed by other companies, it would have a disastrous effect on employment and the economy.
  What is needed now is massive investment in new plant and equipment in many of our industries, so that we have a sound basis for future economic growth.
  Yet over the last 10 years, at least, private enterprise firms have ignored

  739
  every plea and incentive from Governments of both parties to increase capital investment.
  They failed to increase capital investment during the Tories' 18 months of "heady free enterprise" capitalism, just as they had done under Labour interventionism. Even the £3,000 million of subsidies poured into private enterprise in the last three years has not changed the situation. So it is clearly unrealistic to expect private enterprise to act in the national interest without further Government intervention.
  This is one of the considerations behind Labour's plans for industry and the planning agreement system is the key. Planning agreements are not new. They have been in use in Belgium, France and Italy. The value of the planning agreement, I would suggest, is that the companies concerned would supply up-to-date information on past performance and advance programmes on home and overseas sales, regional distribution of employment, price control and domestic investment levels, industrial relations practices and product development. The companies and Government will begin to share information.
  The Government would give financial aid on the basis of written agreements to allow the programmes formulated to be met. Most intelligent companies will recognise that this is a tremendous spur to their own development and planning. Ultimately, if Government is asked for support and help from companies, at least some evidence will be there on which to make a proper appraisal.
  Industry has no cause to complain about the extensiveness of Labour's plans. They are primarily the result of industry's failure to respond to the needs of the nation. But it has no cause for alarm either. The planning agreements system is the best chance that this country has yet had of building a fruitful partnership between Government and industry.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: The one thing that emerges clearly from this debate is that no one in Britain doubts the severity of the economic uncertainties that now face us. They are undoubtedly the gravest that anyone of my generation has ever had to contemplate. The
  740
  economic difficulties exist but the threat to the whole of our society arising from them is also more worrying and uncertain than anything that I can remember.
  Without doubt, inflation has brought hardship to millions, both in threatening their earnings and eroding their savings. The stability of our society faces strains the pressure of which is incalculable. The concept of an ordered society faces militancy from an ever-widening group on a scale never seen before. The wider the militancy the wider the growing despair among those people traditionally associated with the stability of society. Hon. Members have no choice but to face up to the grave and rising scepticism with which increasing numbers of our electors regard our ability to cope with these problems.
  It is against this background that we debate the Government's industrial policies. We should, as a nation, be deploying every device of energy and enthusiasm to create a great industrial partnership, based upon trust. Instead, the speeches of Ministers and back benchers and their supporters in the country have been continually bent upon destroying the credibility of the system upon which the vast creation of wealth totally depends.
  There is now to be a harmful and debilitating clash between the Socialist minority in this country and the rest of us who do not believe in that system, in order to further their nationalisation and collectivist aims. To the overwhelming majority of our citizens these proposals are quite unacceptable. This certainly applies to anyone who voted Conservative or Liberal, but I believe also that many members of the Labour Party itself do not want their jobs transferred from free enterprise to the State sector. This would give to a reasonably detached observer the opportunity to find a basis for consensus upon which to organise industry which would command the overwhelming support of the people of this country.
  But this is a Government not only without a majority but driven by a minority within their own ranks. This country is constantly expected to pay the price which the Socialist extremists within the Labour movement demand for their continued support of a Labour Government.

  741
  That is what the National Enterprise Board, the planning agreements and the endless attacks on free enterprise are all about.
  Let us be clear about the differences between the two parties. We have no doubt that the free enterprise system has provided, across the world, greater growth compatible with personal liberty than any system devised to take its place. Where it falls down, we would not hesitate, and never have hesitated, to reform, regulate or improve it. We have done this consistently, as in the Companies Bill which the House was considering before the election. A whole range of legislation has been introduced by one Government after another to change the basis of the relationship between employee and company—the Factories Acts, the Safety Acts, Acts to protect the environment, the Contracts of Employment Acts, and so on. There has been endless legislative innovation to change the basis of that relationship. That is right, and that is an on-going process. If ownership is not widely enough distributed let us distribute it more widely; if growth is too slow let us learn from the examples of the countries which have achieved a higher rate of growth than we have. What I find so incredible about today's debate is that we heard the Secretary of State for Industry list one country after another which had done things better than we had, and in every one of those countries the free enterprise system was seen to be part of the accepted way in which Government and industry managed their affairs.
  By all means let us regulate and let us control; by all means let us seek constantly to update and overhaul the environment within which the system operates, but let us not try to change the basis of that system which has done so much to create the wealth of the people in this country.
  If one wants more employee participation, that should be achieved in a direct way rather than through Government ownership of companies, with all the ossifying effect that that produces. If communication in industry is bad—and it is bad in many instances—there is no shadow of evidence to suggest that communication is better in a State monopoly than in a well-run private company. The
  742
  argument lies heavily in favour of the free enterprise system.
  If a great company is failing in its duty in the way in which it serves the community, I see no objection to the Government's discussing with the shareholders or their representatives the way in which things can be improved, but the essence of the situation is that we have to find a basis of trust so that the Government, shareholders, employees and management can work with the common purpose of trying to improve upon the system.
  The reality is that across the world Governments are seeking close relationships with the people who work in industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) was right in saying that there is nothing new in the concept of intervention. What one has to understand is the way in which intervention can work to the positive benefit of the people, and also the way in which it can work to their positive harm.
  The difference between the two sides of the House is that we believe that progress is possible only if there is a basis of trust between the management of companies and the Government. There is nothing new in corporate plans being discussed between Government and large companies. It is one thing for these companies to discuss their corporate plans with the Government if they know that the purpose of Government is to help build upon the success of the companies. But it is quite another if they realise that they will meet one problem which the National Enterprise Board is bound to come up against and of which we have had a classic example today. How on earth can the managers of a company be expected to share their problems, anxieties and difficulties with a Minister if they know that within a relatively short time he may use those arguments and difficulties to buy into those companies at knock-down prices? How does one face that dilemma? How can one expect British companies to become involved in a dialogue of confidential information with Ministers and their officials on what both sides believe to be important issues if what is said is revealed at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and if letters which are written by officials of the Department are quoted from but not

  743
  published by the Minister who cannot explain how he came to have the letters in the first place?
  What British industry must understand is that today we have seen the first glimpse of the way in which the National Enterprise Board will work. Confidential discussions which I had with these companies, on a basis of trust and with a common purpose of seeing whether there was a possibility of a voluntary agreement to help the companies, have been revealed. The discussions came to nothing, but in the hands of a differently motivated Minister that, tonight, becomes a sinister conspiracy to be played with politically for his own cheap party ends.
  Let there be no doubt that there is today a massive need for a process of education to make sure that all our citizens understand just how dependent we are upon the free enterprise system. It is not just a question of shareholders. We have to realise that what is involved are pension funds, life assurance policies and small savings. All these are dependent upon the growth, energy and enterprise of the free market, and there is no evidence from any part of the world—and none was produced by the Minister—that there is a better way of seeing our people prosper more, faster or to their greater interest than free enterprise.
  What is to happen now? We are told that 50 per cent. of the directors of companies are to be appointed by the members of those companies who happen to belong to a trade union. I have read—as no doubt many others have—the document which argues in favour of worker participation in this way. It must rank as one of the least honest political documents ever produced in this country, because all the argument is in favour of participation by all the employees up to the point. Then it says that it cannot be done in that way because the trade unions would not agree to it. The reality is that if someone joins a trade union he will have a vote, but if he does not he will be disfranchised. The harsh reality is that in many parts of the world that kind of democracy exists, but in this country democracy could never be so described.
  We are to have a National Enterprise Board—I think that it could more appropriately be called a National Extravagance
  744
  Board—and the sector of industry which in 10 years has produced profits of £28,000 million, after allowing for the repayment of all the grants, loans and aid that it has had, is to be set against a nationalised sector which, in the whole of its existence, has lost on its trading activities a total of £1,650 million.
  We are told that the proposed system has some inherent advantage. But the public sector has had £5,000 million of invested capital written off for all time, at that cost to the taxpayer. We are told that there are to be planning agreements with the top 100 or 180 companies, but we cannot be told which companies are involved. Where is all this open Government, this free consultation and discussion with all the people concerned? Why can the British public not be told which companies are involved in these proposals for the first wave?
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be familiar with the old dialogue about the commanding heights—and that is what the Socialists are about—but once the commanding heights had fallen they moved to stage 2 which involves the 100 or 180 companies. The question that one has to ask is: if the Government were able to achieve control of the top 100 or 180 companies, would that be the end of the road?
  Perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote from page 14 of the document on the National Enterprise Board. It says:
  "The direct contribution of the NEB companies would also be matched by a 'pull' effect on private companies of a kind which previous planning and financial innovation did not promote—both because many private companies would be compelled to follow the NEB companies lead, or lose market shares and profits".
  It is not just a question of the top 100 or 180 companies, but of all the companies underneath them which can be influenced by the buying powers of those top companies.
  If we may consider the position that follows, we see that there is a further quotation that all those companies which are smaller than the top 100 or 180 companies and have been receiving Government aid—for aims which in many cases have been socially desirable but uneconomic—are likely to find that they are having to negotiate shares in continuation for development assistance from the Government. If anyone has any doubt,

  745
  here we have the Labour Party stating that where the State puts money into private enterprise it shall take shares in return. Let us have no nonsense about the top 100 companies. It merely starts with the top 100 companies. There are no lengths to which the Government are not committed by the document which we are considering tonight.
  The House will want to consider what is the motive behind the Government's proposals. Is it efficiency? No example has been given in the debate, nor will one be given because there is not one to give, to show that efficiency is the goal to which we are striving. The reality is that the goal is the creation of a Socialist society, wished for by only a small group of extremists who power the Labour movement. That is what is behind the industrial policy of the Labour Party.
  Let us put the question to the test, and let us ask who wants this particular policy. We are told that it is all subject to consultation. An article in the Sunday Times in April gave an example of the Secretary of State's method of consultation. The journalist writing the article stated, referring to the Secretary of State:
  "To illustrate what he means, he had the shipbuilders in a few days ago, nervously asking what he meant to do with their industry. He simply told them that he was going to nationalise them, without any question and now could they get down to discussing details …".
  That is the sort of consultation which the right hon. Gentleman believes in.
  We can go a stage further and ask how many workers in the industries concerned will be given a choice. Will there be ballots, votes and questionnaires to find out which employees want to be nationalised? Will there be even a referendum on the change of status in the ownership of the company involved? No, of course there will not be any form of genuine consultation. All we shall see will be a steam rollering through the House of Commons of legislation to give power to the Government, without any attempt at genuine consultation with people outside.
  The reality was again revealed to anyone who doubts it when the point arose that supposing after the experiment, the Government's great Socialist step forward, people want to change their minds and return to a free enterprise system. Would they have power to do that?
  746
  We have the view on page 19 of the pamphlet on the National Enterprise Board, in which it is explained what happens when people want to opt out of Socialist experiments. The view is perfectly clear:
  "The Labour Party has pledged itself to renationalise without compensation those parts of the nationalised industries hived off by the present Conservative administration."
  So it is one-way traffic. One can nationalise, take over and Socialise, but one can never go back, and that is a lesson the House will not want to forget.
  We have heard in the past few weeks that because of the anxiety created by the stirrings of the industrial ownership argument, the Prime Minister has once again assumed charge of this crucial policy area. Of course he will argue that he never lost charge and that it was under his control in the first place, but that does not satisfy many of us as much as the Prime Minister would wish. The harsh reality is that the Prime Minister actually believed in an Industrial Relations Bill and actually believed in Europe. He believed in both those things until he could no longer control the small, militant groups on his back benches, who would not have it. Was the Prime Minister in charge, or the militants?
  That situation was as true of the Government's industrial policy as it was of previous policy. If the Prime Minister is really in charge will he explain to the House what the Secretary of State for Industry was doing in Brussels earlier this week, in discussion with the Commission to find out whether he could use powers open to him to squeeze the private steel sector of industry out of existence. I see that the Prime Minister did not know that the Secretary of State was in Brussels. That is very good—the Prime Minister has learned something tonight.
  It may be interesting to ask where the policy which we are now considering came from, as we consider that the jobs of virtually 90 per cent. of employees, and savings, investment and pension funds in a free enterprise system are at stake. I would have thought that the Labour Party would have taken the trouble to set up a deep, penetrating and objective inquiry into the free enterprise system to discover whether it worked.
  The pamphlet about the National Enterprise Board was produced by two

  747
  of the more extremist members of the Government party—four academics, two trade union officials and one other chap about whom I cannot find out anything, despite having spent the whole morning trying. That is the composition of the study on which the ownership of British industry is to be put up for bids by the National Enterprise Board.
  What are to be the consequences now? I believe that there will be an immediate hostility in industry following the argument put forward by the Secretary of State for Industry that wherever industry accept grants it is likely to mortgage the shares in its company. There can be only one consequence of that, namely that companies will be reluctant to accept grants. They will seek development overseas, or in those parts of this country where there will be no pressure for them to be involved with Government at all. The parts of Britain which will suffer most from this will be those parts which we most seek to help—the regions.
  We shall see a growing involvement of management in the hostility building up against the doctrinaire proposals, when they should be trying to build up the economic strength and prosperity of their companies. It is no accident that statistics from the Department of Industry for April and May show that industrial confidence has slumped to the lowest recorded level ever. There have been only four occasions when confidence has been so low, and three of them have been under Labour Governments.
  Overseas companies considering investment in this country will wait to see what threat to their investment will be embodied in the Government's proposals. British companies will consider investing overseas, to ensure that they are as far removed as possible from the Government's policies.
  The thrusting, driving companies which are getting bigger will decide that when they get to a certain level they should not get any bigger, because they may be near the point at which the Government will want to get more deeply involved with them.
  We are faced with a major collapse of business confidence as a result of the Government's activities. The message to go from the House of Commons is that industry can no longer sit silently while
  748
  faced with the greatest threat ever to its survival. It is not enough for those sitting on these benches to continually point out the difficulties which confront industry. Industry must become as articulately involved and as determined in defence of the free enterprise system as those who seek to destroy it have shown themselves to be. This is its last chance.
  6.39 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I offer congratulations to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on taking over the Shadow Industry portfolio, and on his appointment to the Shadow Cabinet. He will certainly raise the average level of quality on the Opposition Front Bench. I wish him a long stay, but as we are now getting Shadow Government reshuffles every week or two, and liquidations and purges almost every day, I fear that he will be fortunate if he survives three weeks in his present appointment, and after a short period we shall read that he has switched to a Shadow appointment in education, or gone into oblivion.
  I was interested in his point about consultation. He apparently objected to the suggestion from my right hon. Friend that the policy was there, but that there could be no consultations about the details. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Government said about the Industrial Relations code, "Take it or leave it". We say that the principles have been laid down by the electorate.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the months leading up to the 1970 General Election my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), who was then responsible for the Labour portfolio, tried every ingenuity he knew to persuade the trade unions. They refused.
  The Prime Minister: In all the months up to the 1974 election we made plain to the country that this was our policy. It was in the manifesto. It is the election result that the right hon. Gentleman is contesting, not the policies of the Government.
  I should like to begin also by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his characteristic courtesy in informing me that he intended to take part in the debate—a gesture slightly marred, I

  749
  thought, by his decision to wait to do this much longer than is usual—until he knew that I was out of the country.
  Mr. Heath: One does not usually give away these matters but as the right hon. Gentleman is being so unpleasant, is he not aware that his Chief Whip approached me on Monday and asked whether I could kindly let him know within 24 hours whether I intended taking part in the debate. I said that of course I would do so, and on Tuesday morning he was told.
  The Prime Minister: On the contrary, I checked before I left London. It was checked with his office before I left London, at three o'clock. The speakers were to be the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—[Interruption]. I heard at midnight on that day that my Chief Whip was told this at six o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this never happened when we were in opposition.
  I have a charitable interpretation because, whatever suspicions I might have had about his motives, I realised how unfair they might have been when yesterday, in Bonn, I received a copy of the Daily Mail with a headline which read:
  "Tory rebels put Heath on the Mat. MPs lash out at 'Softly, Softly' policy."
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister effectively wasted the entire time allotted to Prime Minister's Questions today. Is it in order for him to continue to waste what little time we have left for this debate? Will he now address himself to the motion?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order.
  The Prime Minister: These interruptions are, of course, cutting into the next debate which should start at Seven o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I am sympathising with the right hon. Gentleman. The Daily Mail said that the right hon. Gentleman had been summoned to explain—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about nationalisation?"] The right hon. Gentleman did not get near it for the first 10 minutes of his speech. The report said the right hon. Gentleman had been summoned to explain his immediate political aims to a rebellious meeting of the 1922 Committee of Tory MPs in the Commons. I
  750
  suddenly realised why he was speaking. I applaud this. I support it. How much better to convert this "softly softly" label and secure an alibi by pleading a previous engagement, in the Chamber.
  Although I welcome the fact that he spoke, I did not welcome the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I thought it was the most hysterical we have ever heard from him. He started with the Budget, and touched on the Common Market and many other matters before he came to the main theme. Before I come to the substance—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman really tried to make a motion of censure speech today, but he has not got the guts to table a censure motion because he is too afraid of the consequences.
  I know how flattered my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be about the references to him today. The Tory Party has an almost manic obsession with my right hon. Friend. I have been able to confirm—I was just talking with him—that he is neither unduly depressed nor unduly flattered by this interest. The Tory Party has always lived on demonology—
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: What about the motion?
  The Prime Minister: I shall come to that as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman did. A few years ago Mr. Frank Cousins had become the demonological target of the Tory Party.
  Mr. Archer: What happened to him?
  The Prime Minister: There was Soskice, Strachey, Mahatma Ghandi, Pandit Nehru and the rest. A week or so ago, Hugh Scanlon joined the roll of honour. Then, by a major policy decision of the Tories, they attacked my right hon. Friend.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech today was one of those typical Central Office briefs, read rather better than usual. He dealt with the nationalised industries in a substantial part of that speech. He attacked the record of the nationalised industries. He attacked the writing off of capital. He will correct me if I am wrong but I thought he said that the nationalised industries were the curse, or the evil, of this country and had been for 25 years.

  751
  Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that every study undertaken shows that productivity in the nationalised industries has risen far faster than productivity in private industry over those 25 years? Does he deny that if private industry had shown the same productivity increase Britain would not for 20 years have been facing such economic problems?
  If the right hon. Gentleman felt that way, why is it that during 13 years of Conservative rule, and then the three and a half years when he was Prime Minister, these industries were not denationalised? Not even Selsdon Man himself denationalised them. He denationalised land and the Carlisle State pubs. If he believes what he said this afternoon, why did he not have the guts to denationalise and hand over to private enterprise?
  The right hon. Gentleman knows why. He has said it sometimes from this Box and we have both agreed. It is because the essential services concerned, most of them in labour-intensive industries, are loss-making in almost every country in the world, whether privately or publicly owned. I refer to railways, coal, atomic energy, the health service, postal services. They are all loss-making and subsidised—including in America. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is characteristically meretricious.
  Now we come to the policy which seems at long last to have brought the Leader of the Opposition out of his shell, following his explanations on radio and television about why we have not had any opposition out of him until this week. I know why we have not and he knows too. I know what he was waiting for.
  Public ownership, planning agreements, the Industry Act, the National Enterprise Board—these were included in Labour Party policy in Opposition and in Government over a long period of time. They were set out in our programme of 1973, and adopted at our conference last year. They were set out in the manifesto published before the election. They were explained to the country throughout the election—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he won the election. But he is wrong. He did not.
  Mr. Peter Rost: He beat you.
  The Prime Minister: During that election I made a speech every night including this imaginative and totally relevant concept. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has an inbuilt allergy to the idea of a newly-elected Government carrying out what they have told the country in the election they would carry out. I know he does not understand that. During the right hon. Gentleman's three and a half years after June 1970, we saw how allergic he was to carrying out his pledges: prices at a stroke, the Common Market and whole-hearted consent—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like being reminded of this, but they will find themselves getting it again, again and again. Then there was help for owner-occupiers, homes for all, no legislation on wages—[Interruption.] The Opposition have a wonderful slogan to put across in the next election after all that. The number of broken pledges and still more the systematic organisation to ensure that those pledges were broken has no parallel in this country since the beginnings of party government. I know of no Government who have broken more pledges than did the right hon. Gentleman's between 1970 and 1974.
  When The Times told us—I do not regard public opinion polls as accurate within a point or two, but it seems to be shared by the Daily Telegraph this morning—that a number of Conservative voters considered that the Conservative Party should get on without him and appoint a new leader, this is probably due to the broken pledges between 1970 and 1974—
  Mr. Peter Tapsell Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle)rose—
  The Prime Minister: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Hon-castle (Mr. Tapsell) would really improve the Opposition Front Bench, but until he comes to it I cannot give way to him. At least one of my suggestions, made in a radio broadcast, has been brought to that Front Bench, and I am delighted.
  Now the Leader of the Opposition has suddenly become obsessed in this past week with his new-found discovery that the Labour Party is a Socialist party. I wonder why this fact did not occur to him in the months before the election and why it was not made a major issue in the election.

  753
  I made a speech—I am sorry to say nearly an hour long—about our proposals for public ownership at the Labour Party Conference last October. I set out precisely what our proposals were and always had been. There was no comeback from the right hon. Gentleman at his conference or in the months that followed. We heard little of it in the General Election. The only contribution on public ownership which I saw the right hon. Gentleman reported as making was the case that he made in the election that the vast resources of the Scottish and Celtic Sea should not adhere to the advantage of the British people but to the advantage of mainly multi-national companies based wholly or partly outside the territorial jurisdiction. Following what I spelled out in the General Election, our proposals on North and Celtic Seas gas and oil will be brought before this House before the Summer Recess.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to this again today. He was absolutely hysterical today about foreign oil interests pulling out. Did they pull out from Norway, where there is a Socialist Government with their carried interest system with 80/20 per cent. public participation?
  The right hon. Gentleman made nothing of this in the General Election. He spent most of the election advocating the therapeutic qualities of a three-day working week and pressing the theme "Who governs Britain?"—a question which we found fascinating during the weekend following the election. The right hon. Gentleman said today that the Labour Party was greedy for power. What about the weekend after the election, which he spent negotiating with the Liberals and was said to be interested in the support of the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists? There was even a time, it was reported, when he intended to get the Ulster Unionist extremists to vote for him, until that was vetoed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
  On our proposals for nationalisation, we heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman. Only in the past few days—
  Mr. Churchill: Get to the motion.
  The Prime Minister: I thought that the complaint was that the Opposition heard too much from us. Now they say they
  754
  have heard nothing from us. They had better make up their minds about it. I have made several speeches about it, one as recently as last Friday night. The right hon. Gentleman has an arrangement with Transport House whereby he is supplied with documents, so he will have read it himself on Saturday morning—
  Mr. Churchill Mr. Churchill rose—
  The Prime Minister: No, I shall not give way—
  Mr. Churchill Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) must sit down. The Prime Minister is not giving way to him.
  The Prime Minister: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman has not been informed of our proposals and our policy. It occurred to me that the grand master of the U-turn was wondering at one time whether to adopt our nationalisation policy for inclusion in Tory policy. Some of his so-called supporters would not have been surprised in view of some of his U-turns, and if he had thought that he would ensure votes by it, he would have done it.
  What we said in the manifesto is the policy of the Government, as it was the policy of the party before and during the General Election. That has not been in question at any time.
  Mr. Churchill: What is the price of it?
  The Prime Minister: Winning Stretford in the next General Election.
  Mr. Churchill Mr. Churchill rose—
  The Prime Minister: I have referred—
  Mr. Churchill Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Prime Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for Stretford must not persist in standing up.
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has attacked me—do I not have the right to reply?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stretford must resume his seat.
  The Prime Minister: I replied to a seated intervention.
  I have referred to the speech that I made at the Labour Party Conference. I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand that this is nothing new. This was said before the election and during the election. I want to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, when he starts doing his own research again, that this has been said. I said it at the party conference and in a series of public speeches. I shall be very glad to let the right hon. Gentleman have copies of the Press handouts of those speeches.
  The right hon. Gentleman is trying to say that this is a new invention of the Government. If he will bear with me, perhaps I may quote what I said at at least 30 or 40 election meetings. I hope that he will bear with me. After all, we have heard his old speeches again today.
  I said:
  "We expect to be judged by the speed with which we have introduced the exercise of public control over private companies through our Industry Act and the other measures set out in the Conference programme. Judged again by our progress in extending public enterprise by taking mineral rights, ship-building and ancillary industries, the ports and aircraft into public ownership and control. North Sea oil and gas to come under national and not private control. The return to public ownership of assets and undertakings transferred by the present Government "—
  the then Government—
  "for private profit, and the creation of the National Enterprise Board, with the structure and functions approved by the Conference."
  That is what we said in the election, and the right hon. Gentleman's attack is an attack upon those who voted in the election. It is not an attack upon what we said to them.
  I also said at all those meetings—and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not address himself to this—
  "We shall apply the same principle as private finance insists upon, that where money goes the control exercised must match the money invested."
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that I spelt this out in the debate on the Gracious Speech. He did not pick up that point in that debate, and none of his right hon. Friends picked it up. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry spelt it out in the debate
  756
  on the Gracious Speech. There is really nothing new in the situation that we defend today, except the need of the Leader of the Opposition, for his own purposes, to spell it out.
  The point is that once the Conservative Party thinks that it is in a safe period for an election, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he is in a very unsafe period. That is why he has suddenly become the most incredible militant. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise at the same time that we—I speak for all on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—are a party of compassion. I hope that he will recognise that we are not without understanding and sympathy for him in his present predicament.
  In three and a half months in opposition we have heard hardly a squeak out of the right hon. Gentleman, and he told the country why. I hope that the 1922 Committee will demonstrate a reasonable degree of tolerance and understanding towards him. It is very important to us that, despite the wishes of Conservative voters, the right hon. Gentleman remains the Conservative Leader. In this respect at least in this debate on that one matter there is great bipartisan interest.
  Mr. Churchill: Let the people decide this issue.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has now lost any chance that he had of coming to the Front Bench even for three weeks with that intervention. I was coming to that point later.
  In three and a half months we have not had the faintest glimmering of any new policy emerging from the Conservative Opposition in readiness for the coming General Election. It is now clear to the country that the right hon. Gentleman will fight the election on confrontation and the need to get Britain back to a three-day week. He will be fighting it without a policy and without a team. It is the slimmest Front Bench we have seen this century. The only view we get from them every week is another reshuffle and more sackings. We have an Opposition Leader—whom God preserve—and the 1922 Committee, shuffling his Shadows, fiddling about with his phantoms, but never knowing what to do next.

  757
  We recognise—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is challenging us to an election and I am dealing with his challenge tonight. I recognise that it must be difficult for him to be committed to fight that election on a policy which implies that the terms that he so meekly accepted on entry into the Market—he referred to it at length today and I reserve the right to reply—should not be regarded as sacrosanct. He refuses to grant the British people the final and binding word of the ballot box. The right hon. Gentleman, avid as he is for an election—we can all see that: cheer up a bit—knows that it is not an attractive election slogan for him to stump the country for three weeks asserting that the gentlemen in Brussels know best.
  The right hon. Gentleman also knows that he has prepared no policies for dealing with inflation. No one knows whether his policies will be Selsdon man all over again or the panic outpourings of aid to lame ducks in industry without public accountability. No one sitting behind him knows on which of those two policies he will have to fight in the General Election.
  We have seen—which the right hon. Gentleman has to defend—a cutting of the housing programme to the lowest figures in our history.
  Today the right hon. Gentleman referred—[Interruption.] There have been enough interruptions. I propose to take a little injury time because of interruptions by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to confidence in the City, which he blames on speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. He knows that his financial policies—the free-for-all in the City and the competition and credit control White Paper—created the present crisis in the City with secondary banks and other financial institutions.
  Today the right hon. Gentleman referred to Lonrho. He took no action against the evils revealed. He had a Companies Act inquiry, like a previous Tory Government at the time of the Bloom affair—a process lasting nearly
  758
  six years—and Government action, but all leading nowhere. He is the man who condemned the unacceptable face of capitalism and did precisely nothing about it. The Lonrho affair would never have come to the notice of the public had it not been for a boardroom row.
  What we and the country have a right to ask, after those disclosures, is: how many more cases for concern of a similar kind would have been shown were it not that "old boy" solidarity in the boardroom has prevented any such disclosures?
  The right hon. Gentleman has chosen this issue for debate. It is one in which he has finally decided to intervene in our debates. On one thing I agree with him. This debate is vitally important for Britain.
  We have put forward our policies, which were fully set out during the election, and the right hon. Gentleman never tried to reply to them. Now he has picked them up. Let him begin to study what he has refused to consider and which never occurred throughout his speech or his premiership, namely, the vital issues of accountability to the nation of those who exercise so much power within the nation, particularly when they are helped with finance to exercise that power. Then, when he has considered them, because we cannot wait indefinitely—
  Mr. Heseltine Mr. Heseltine rose—
  The Prime Minister:—let us have his positive policy—
  Mr. Heseltine Mr. Heseltine rose—
  The Prime Minister: As I was saying before the hon. Member for Henley got uncomfortable, let the right hon. Gentleman now begin to study these vital issues of accountability to the nation of those who exercise so much power within the nation and are financially helped, and then, because we and the country cannot wait indefinitely, let us have his positive policy, his manifesto, and let the people decide.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 311.

  Division No. 47.

  AYES

  [7.08 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Allaun, Frank

  Ennals, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ashley, Jack

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McElhone, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk&G'm'th)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Bates, Alf

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Magee, Bryan

  Baxter, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Mallalieu, J. P W.

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Booth, Albert

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Meacher, Michael

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

  Melish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mendelson, John

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  George, Bruce

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bradley, Tom

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Millan, Bruce

  Broughton Sir Alfred

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)

  Graham, Ted

  Milne, Edward

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

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

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Molloy, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Moonman, Eric

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H' gey, WoodGreen)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Moyle, Roland

  Campbell, Ian

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cant, R. B.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carter, Ray

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hooley, Frank

  O'Malley, Brian

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Horam, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cocks, Michael

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

  Cohen, Stanley

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ovenden, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Padley, Walter

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C)

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Cox, Thomas

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHill)

  Parry, Robert

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

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jackson, Colin

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Cryer, G. R.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Phipp, Dr. Colin

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)

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

  Prescott, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Radice, Giles

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

  Judd, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

  Dempsey, James

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roper, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Edward

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamond, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  Du nett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

  Sedgemore, Bryan

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wishaw)

  Selby, Harry

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lee, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)

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

  Lewis Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Silkin, Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitlock, William

  Sillars, James

  Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman, Julius

  Tierney, Sydney

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Small, William

  Tomlinson, John

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

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Snape, Peter

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

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

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Woodall, Alec

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Woof, Robert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Watkins, David

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Swain, Thomas

  White, James

  Mr. John Golding.

  Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dixon, Piers

  Heseltine, Michael

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Higgins, Terence

  Ancram, M.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hill, James A.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Holland, Philip

  Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey(Spelthorne)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Hordern, Peter

  Awdry, Daniel

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Baker, Kenneth

  Dunlop, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Durant, Tony

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Banks, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Hunt, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Emery, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray& Nairn)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Benyon, W.

  Eyre, Reginald

  James, David

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

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

  Biffen, John

  Farr, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

  Fidler, Michael

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Body, Richard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, )

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Bray, Ronald

  Fox, Marcus

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brewis, John

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brittan, Leon

  Freud, Clement

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fry, Peter

  Kirk, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Bruce Gardyne, J.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Knox, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

  Lamont, Norman

  Buck, Antony

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

  Lane, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Goodlad, A.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gorst, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Gow, I. R. E. (Eastbourne)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

  Channon, Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Loveridge, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grieve, Percy

  Luce, Richard

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

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  MacCormack, Iain

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grist, Ian

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Cockcroft, John

  Grylls, Michael

  MacGregor, John

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  McLaren, Martin

  Cope, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

  Cordle, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McNair-Wilson. Patrick (New Forest)

  Corrie, John

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Madel, David

  Costain, A. P.

  Hannam, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marten, Neil

  Critchley, Julian

  Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

  Mather, Carol

  Crouch, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maude, Angus

  Crowder, F. P.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  762

  763

  Mawby, Ray

  Redmond, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taverne, Dick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Reid, George

  Taylor, Edward M. (Gl'gow, C'cart)

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

  Renton, Rt. Hn. SirDavid (H't gd'n re)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mills, Peter

  Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Ridsdale. Julian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Money, Ernle

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net,H'dn S.)

  Monro, Hector

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

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

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

  Townsend, C. D.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morgan, Geraint

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

  Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Neave, Airey

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Neubert, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wakeham, John

  Newton, Tony (Braintree)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Normanton, Tom

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Nott, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Wall, Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Walters, Dennis

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Shersby, Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Silvester, Fred

  Watt, Hamish

  Osborn, John

  Sims, Roger

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wells, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

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

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

  Pardoe, John

  Spence, John

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Percival, Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stainton, Keith

  Worsley, Sir Marcus

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanley, John

  Younger, Hn George

  Prior, Rt. Hn. James

  Steel, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stokes. John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 290.

  Division No. 48]

  AYES

  [7.21 p.m

  Adley, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buck, Antony

  Dunlop, John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Budgen, Nick

  Durant, Tony

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ancram, M.

  Burden, F. A.

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey (Spelthorne)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Elliott, Sir William

  Awdry, Daniel

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth

  Chalker. Mrs. Lynda

  Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray&Nairn)

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Channon, Paul

  Eyre, Reginald

  Banks, Robert

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Farr, John

  Beith, A. J.

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Bell, Ronald

  Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fidler, Michael

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

  Cockcroft, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Benyon, W.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Cope, John

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

  Biffen, John

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Blaker, Peter

  Corrie, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Fox, Marcus

  Body, Richard

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

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

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Freud, Clement

  Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Crouch, David

  Fry, Peter

  Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Bradford, Rev. R.

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

  Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

  Bray, Ronald

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Brewis, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David

  Brittan, Leon

  Dixon, Piers

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

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Goodhart, Philip

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mactarlane, Neil

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Goodlad, A.

  MacGregor, John

  Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  Gorst, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Gow, I. R. E. (Eastbourne)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Grieve, Percy

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Marten, Neil

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

  Grist, Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Shersby, Michael

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Silvester, Fred

  Gurden, Harold

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Sims, Roger

  Hall, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Hannam, John

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

  Spence, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Peter

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Money, Ernle

  Stainton, Keith

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monro, Hector

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Stanley, John

  Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Steel, David

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

  Higgins, Terence

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Hill, James A.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

  Stokes, John

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

  Mudd, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Neave, Airey

  Tapsell, Peter

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Neubert, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Newton, Tony (Braintree)

  Taylor, Edward M, (Gl'gow, C'cart)

  Hunt, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Nott, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Onslow, Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net,H'dn S.)

  James, David

  Osborn, John

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

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

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Townsend, C. D.

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Trotter, Neville

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pardoe, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Jopling, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Waddington, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wakeham, John

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Prior, Rt. Hn. James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wall, Patrick

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Walters, Dennis

  Kirk, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Watt, Hamish

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Redmond, Robert

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wells, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Lane, David

  Reid, George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Worsley Sir Marcus

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

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

  Younger, Hn. George

  Loveridge, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Luce, Richard

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  MacCormack, Iain

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Allaun, Frank

  Bates, Alf

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

  Baxter, William

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bradley, Tom

  Ashley, Jack

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Broughton Sir Alfred

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Booth, Albert

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow,Springb'rn

  766

  767

  Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)

  Hatton, Frank

  Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

  Callaghan, Rt.Hn.James(Cardiff, S.E.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ovenden, John

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Owen, Dr. David

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Padley, Walter

  Cant, R. B.

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Carter, Ray

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parry, Robert

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cocks, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cohen. Stanley

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Coleman, Donald

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHill)

  Phipps, Dr. Colin

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jackson, Colin

  Prescott, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Greville

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

  Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cox, Thomas

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Radice, Giles

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cronin, John

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cryer, G. R.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Robertson. John (Paisley)

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

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rooker J. W.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield,.)

  Judd, Frank

  Roper, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rowlands, Edward

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sandelson, Neville

  Deakins, Eric

  Kilroy-Silk. Robert

  Sedgemore, Bryan

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Selby, Harry

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lambie, David

  Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

  De'a, Hugh

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)

  Dempsey, James

  Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wishaw)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lee, John

  Silkin, Rt.Hn.S.C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

  Sillars, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Eadie, Alex

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)

  Snape, Peter

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  English, Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

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

  Ennals, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)

  Stott, Roger

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Gavin

  Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&G'm'th)

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Magee, Bryan

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mahon, Simon

  Swain, Thomas

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mallalieu, J. P W

  Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marquand, David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Tomlinson, John

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

  Mendelson, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

  Milne, Edward

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

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  George, Bruce

  Molloy, William

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  White, James

  Grant, John (Islington, C.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Whitlock, William

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hamling, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  768

  769

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

  Wool Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Woodail, Alec

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. John Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House regrets the Government's damaging industrial policies based on a massive extension of nationalisation and control of individual companies.
  The Prime Minister The Prime Minister rose—
  Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister to state that he will acknowledge the will of the House which has been twice demonstrated tonight in the Lobbies and announce that his administration will abandon the thoroughly damaging programme of nationalisation and State control which he has so singularly failed to justify tonight in what must have been the most inadequate and appalling speech ever made from a Front Bench by any Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government will, of course, consider the implications of these two important votes. We shall also consider the implications of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has taken a vital part of the manifesto on which we were elected, submitted it to a vote and collected his hon. Friends in the Lobby. That raises important political and constitutional implications following the speech of the right hon. Gentleman seeking to tell Europe what a minority Government could and could not do in negotiations with Europe, and following four defeats in Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman can be fully assured that we shall consider all the implications following what he has succeeded in doing today, and that in due course our decision will be made known.

  NIGHT STORAGE HEATING
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move:
  That this House, recalling the encouragement given to consumers by the electricity boards
  770
  to install night storage heating, notes the widespread public dismay at the disproportionate 70 per cent. increase in off-peak charges; deplores the failure of the Government to give any adequate justification for such an increase; and calls for any increase that may be required to be phased so as to avoid hardship to pensioners, the disabled and other hard-pressed householders.
  There can be few actions by any State-owned industry in recent years which has aroused as much public resentment as the decision to raise the price of off-peak electricity by 70 per cent., and in some cases by even more, at one fell swoop. My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 24th May. That debate, short as it was, showed clearly the deep concern that is felt on this issue on both sides of the House. The reaction that many of us have had since then from members of the public has greatly emphasised that concern. We return to the subject tonight for a full-scale debate.
  The British people are for the most part reasonable and understanding. The huge rise in world oil prices is well understood by them. The need for sharp rises in coal prices, although a little more controversial, is recognised by most. The increased prices of petrol, paraffin and ordinary electricity have been accepted by the people with little real grumbling, despite the fact that the increased price of paraffin, for example, gave rise to some hardship.
  In contrast to that mood of what I might describe as long-suffering acquiescence, the public reaction to the increased charges for off-peak electricity has been an explosion of real anger. It was clear from Question Time on Monday that the blast of that explosion has been felt not merely on the benches behind me but on both sides of the House.
  There are several reasons for this resentment, but perhaps the one that is most often expressed is that people feel they have been "conned". For years, the electricity industry has based its advertising campaign on what it called "half-price electricity". Now it is no longer to be half price. Indeed, off-peak electricity will cost significantly more than half-price.

  771
  Again, many people were misled by the Chancellor's statement on Budget day, when he said that the price increases he had announced would mean
  "increases to domestic consumers averaging about 30 per cent. on bills reaching most of them from the beginning of August "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1974; Vol. 871, c. 301].
  People simply did not realise until weeks later that the increase of 0·3p per unit across the board for standard and off-peak charges meant that bills were likely to increase within a range of between 10 per cent. and perhaps as high as 55 per cent.
  Then again, many people have been very irritated by the case that has been put—notably by the Under-Secretary of State—that the small user was going to be hit much less hard than the large user. The truth is that the size of increase of any individual's bill depends not so much upon whether he is a large or small user, but on the ratio of off-peak to on-peak electricity that he consumes. A small user most of whose electricity is used off-peak will find his bill rising by the higher end of the range of increases.
  All this has served to confuse, irritate and infuriate the 2 million consumers of off-peak electricity. Furthermore, they feel that, having been misled in the past, they have now been singled out to bear a disproportionate share of the burden for the future. When one bears in mind what was said in The Times on 15th June, that
  "night storage heaters have, in many cases, been fitted by families on a tight budget or by old people because of the low initial installation cost,"
  one can see that a massive increase of the size many of these people now face will fall with great harshness on their domestic budget. Many others live in flats where off-peak heating is centrally provided, and they have no option. All of them have expended sums of greater or lesser amount on installing the system, only to find now that, from being one of the cheapest forms of central heating, it is now one of the most expensive.
  These are the reasons why these 2 million families are angry, and they have good reason to be. They are looking to this House for redress, and I hope to persuade the Government that their policy in relation to off-peak charges is
  772
  misguided and must be modified. Unless we get a firm undertaking of a significant easing of these charges by phasing or some other means, we intend to press the matter to a Division.
  But before I come to examine the details of the argument, I should make three preliminary points because I want them to be clearly understood. My complaint is against Ministers and not against the electricity supply industry as such. The industry is entitled to go for the maximum increase in prices and charges that it thinks it is likely to be allowed by the Government.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that the public had been misled by the advertising of the electricity supply industry. He said they had been "conned". He is now saying that all this is the responsibility of Ministers and that he does not blame the electricity supply industry. How does he reconcile these two statements?
  Mr. Jenkin: It is perfectly easy to reconcile them. It is Ministers who, under the powers they have over the boards, can say "Yea" or "Nay" to a proposal for an increase. The advertisements were years ago. I am now talking about the charges. It is because of this very steep increase in prices that the advertisements are now thought to have been so unfair by the consumers.
  Mr. David Stoddart Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon) rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: The boards are perfectly entitled to put, as it were, at the top of their priority their own solvency. They will argue, with a great deal of effect, that that is their statutory duty. But Ministers have a wider responsibility and a wider power. They have to have regard to the need to avoid inflation and to seek to control the rise in prices and the impact on the retail price index.
  Mr. Stoddart Mr. Stoddart rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: No. I must pursue my argument.
  Mr. Stoddart Mr. Stoddart rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) does not wish to give way, he must not be pressed beyond a certain point.
  Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As I was saying, in pursuing this policy Ministers have to have regard to the need to avoid unnecessarily harsh increases for particular groups of the population. They should see, furthermore, that if unpalatable measures have to be taken they should be taken in a manner seen to be fair and therefore acceptable to the people affected. It is the duty of Ministers to see that proper explanations are given for any decisions that are taken. I am bound to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I believe the Ministers in the Department of Energy have failed dismally on all counts. Our charges are, therefore, directed at them.
  The second point I want to make is that since the election, and, indeed, more important, since the Budget, I have uttered not one word of criticism of the decisions taken to increase energy prices because, in general, I believe that what has been done was inevitable and not a matter of complaint; but on the question of off-peak prices I believe the decisions have gone sadly awry.
  Thirdly, I do not object in principle to some form of fuel adjustment clause for the domestic consumer. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that I indicated that this is acceptable in principle to the Government. At a time of rapid change in fuel prices, one way of ensuring that such changes are reflected in charges to the consumers without too long a time lag is by some form of fuel adjustment clause. I said so on 13th March. But I made it clear that this was acceptance in principle. The words I used then did not mean, and do not now mean, that the Conservative Government were committed to the precise details of how that might be carried into effect, still less to the precise details of what the Government have done, and even less that this is the only way of applying the fuel adjustment clause. On the contrary, we had not accented the Electricity Council's proposal for a price increase, and I can tell the House that we would not have done so in relation to off-peak charges.
  For reasons that I will explain, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be as disingenuous as the Under-Secretary of State was in replying to the earlier
  774
  debate. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State is not to be allowed to reply to this debate, for reasons that we can all appreciate. The Under-Secretary of State seemed to be arguing that my acceptance of a fuel adjustment clause in principle somehow meant that we were committed to accepting all the details of what the Government have done. That is not so, and had I attempted to pretend that it was I would have been guilty of misleading the House.
  The case made in support of what has been done is deceptively simple. It is that the industry's fuel costs have about doubled, adding 0·3p to the cost of producing a unit of electricity; that the cost of fuel to produce off-peak electricity has gone up just as much as for electricity on the standard tariff. Therefore, 0·3p per unit increase across the board is the right response.
  My reaction to this "too-simple-by-half" reasoning comes under two heads. I shall deal with them in turn.
  First, the argument takes no account of the benefit to the electricity supply industry from spreading the load. I have always understood that a main reason, perhaps even the main reason, why the boards went into the central heating off-peak market, was to reduce the growth of on-peak power by persuading customers to switch to off-peak consumption.
  The boards did that because it had distinct advantages for the industry. It reduced the need for new plant to meet the peak load and so delayed the investment which would otherwise have been necessary, saving on capital expenditure. Secondly, it brought in a return which would not otherwise have been derived from electricity generated during off-peak periods from base load plants such as nuclear plants and other power stations which are cheaper to run continuously than to switch off in off-peak periods when consumption falls substantially. If that is right—I do not believe that it is seriously challenged—what will be the effect on this of a significant narrowing of the margin of advantage for off-peak electricity? Of course, one cannot be sure, but there must be more than a slight risk of pushing people back from the off-peak tariff into peak electricity, and this is a message which I am sure I am not alone in hearing from constituents and others, or from reading the newspapers.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman must not overlook the fact that when an increase in costs is a fuel increase—and this is mainly a fuel increase—it falls equally on peak units as well as off-peak units. There is no difference.
  Mr. Jenkin: I accept that that is an argument which Ministers have been advancing in letters to hon. Members. However, it, ignores the effect of a narrowing of the differential and as The Sunday Times put it, perhaps with rather stark overstatement that has more than a grain of truth in it,
  "it effectively knocks electricity out of the central heating market at a stroke".
  Many people have worked out their own figures and have decided that it will no longer pay them to use off-peak electricity for long periods during the night if they have the alternative of using on-peak electricity for much shorter periods during the day. The Rev. Dr. Kenneth Slack, a well-known churchman, said in a letter to The Times
  "The wise citizen will invest in thermostatically controlled oil-filled heaters which will turn themselves on just before he rises and use power at the period of heaviest demand".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had a letter from a constituent which said:
  "If the cost of off-peak electricity is increased as proposed, I, and probably thousands of other people, will discontinue the use of this form of heating."
  There are many other examples one could quote.
  I put this to the Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council and he said that there was no evidence. I accept that there is no evidence because this is the first time there has been a significant narrowing of the margin and therefore one asks whether the industry is right to risk it. Are Ministers right to allow it to risk it, because the effect of a substantial addition to peak demand could be very grave.
  The second argument is perhaps more technical. An increase of 0·3p across the board takes no account of the undoubted fact that the less generating plant that is being used, the higher the overall thermal efficiency of the system—the complicated system of order of merit which the CEGB and other boards use ensures that this efficiency is obtained. The council
  776
  agrees with this but, somewhat to my astonishment, it says that the differential is only marginal—perhaps a 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. difference. That is astonishing. The nuclear generators, which now represent 10 per cent. of the total generating capacity, are 40 per cent. cheaper to run, on average, than fossil fuel stations. This is part of the base load, and that must have a marked effect on the cost of off-peak electricity. The same is to some extent true with the modern 500–600 megawatt generating sets which have significantly higher thermal efficiences than the older stations.
  On 11th April the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) asked the Under-Secretary about the range of efficiencies of power stations and was given an average figure for stations built in the last 12 years. For coal-fired stations the range efficiency of cost per kilowatt was 0·40p to 1·69p. On these figures, it is extraordinarily difficult to believe that the margin of thermal efficiency is as narrow as has been said. If it is that narrow does it not mean that the thermal efficiencies of the base load power stations are very much lower than they should be as a whole, perhaps as a result of operational faults or for other reasons, so much so that they virtually wipe out the cost saving they should be providing?
  Taking the two arguments about the differences of thermal efficiency and the risks of increasing the peak load, I do not believe the Government should have accepted uncritically as they have the Electricity Council's case for an across-the-board parallel increase in charges. Something less than that for off-peak would have been more appropriate and it would have reduced the risk of adding to the peak load with all the problems that that would entail.
  But the case does not stop there, because we must consider the social impact. Even if the Electricity Council had made out its case, so much so that the Government felt obliged to accept it on technical grounds, should the Minister have accepted it having regard both to the background of advertising and the immediate social effect? I am bound to say that the answer must be. "No". Having regard to the tone and content of advertising over the years, a 70 per cent. increase at one go is much too steep to expect consumers to bear, and

  777
  to force this on people often of limited means deals this class of consumer a much heavier blow than they should have to bear. At the very least this increase could have been phased and it must be phased. A full 70 per cent. increase will bring in, I am told, about £80 million. To defer part of the increase would not, therefore, cost a great deal, and certainly the amount is tiny beside the £700 million-odd that the Government are handing out in indiscriminate food subsidies. If they were to do this, it would go some way to temper the feelings of a large number of customers who are already hard pressed and for whom this increase will provide real hardship to the extent that they will not be able to afford to use this system at all.
  I turn to the Government amendment. Most of it is what I would describe as the usual prefatory guff. The meat is in the last two lines. They ask the House to welcome
  "the Government's decision to review the policy for energy prices in the light of their impact on household expenditure".
  The remarkable thing about this is that the Government have announced no decision. I assume that the decision has been taken, unless perhaps we are asked to take into account the ructions at the end of last week. I am sorry that the Patronage Secretary has left the Chamber. Perhaps the ructions at the end of last week were to be taken as some form of announcement.
  We were told that last Thursday hon. Members on the Government bench rebelled. The rebellion was led by the Patronage Secretary. But by Friday all was well again. The Guardian quoted the Patronage Secretary as saying,
  "I am certain that when the vote is taken the Government will have the 100 per cent. support of Labour MPs."
  We will see about that. It seems a rather odd way of announcing a decision to carry out a review of energy prices.
  What does the contention of the Secretary of State, on its face value, amount to? We want to hear. I must warn him that unless it includes a clear undertaking to mitigate the increase in peak charges by phasing, or by some other form of alleviation, the Opposition, at least, will not be satisfied. Again I quote the right hon. Gentleman as quoted in the Press: he said that the increases
  778
  represent cheating. In face of that charge, an undertaking to review the Government's policy will not suffice.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): The hon. Gentleman must not believe all he reads in the Press.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have made many similar comments. I shall take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says.
  I doubt if a woolly review of the sort which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated in his amendment will satisfy hon. Members in all parts of the House, but that is for them to decide.
  Of one thing I am certain. When an issue arises affecting one of our great State industries which arouses such intense resentment as this one has, it is the duty of the House of Commons to give expression to that resentment. It is the duty of Government to give redress. If they do not, I must invite right hon. and hon. Members to express their displeasure in the Division Lobbies.
  8.3 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'whilst deploring the policies of the previous Government which led to the unprecedented deficit of the electricity boards, noting the announcement of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December 1973 that it was anomalous to subsidise electricity prices at a mounting rate, regretting that the previous Government did not inform the country of the full size of the prospective deficit, and noting further that the previous Government had accepted the principle of the fuel adjustment clauses which have led directly to increased charges for night storage heaters, acknowledges the action taken by the Government to help those in need through the largest ever increases in pensions and other benefits, and welcomes the Government's decision to review the policy for energy prices in the light of their impact on household expenditure'.
  This is a short debate—but it is two debates. On the one hand, my hon. Friends—and perhaps hon. Members on the Liberal benches—will voice justifiable and honest concern at the impact on some of their less-well-off constituents of the increase in off-peak electricity charges. We shall listen to them with respect, for they are not open to any charge of double standards.

  779
  On the other hand, we shall watch the official Opposition—we have had the first unseemly instalment from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)—seeking to squeeze the last drop of cheap political capital out of a price increase for which they were responsible—a price increase which they knew was coming when they were in government; a price formula which they knew was coming six months ago; a price increase which went to the Price Commission when they were in government; a price increase which they deliberately suppressed for electoral purposes. It was their guilty secret, and it surfaced in the official handout issued by the Electricity Council three weeks after they left office.
  That is the give away. Every hon. Member in this House knows how long it takes to prepare a tariff adjustment of this nature. I can tell the House that this proposal was one of the first pieces of paper I found on my desk on the very first day I walked into the Department of Energy. It had been ready for ages—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. What is more, in a rare moment of frankness, he blurted it out in this House.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not falling into the elementary trap of confusing a proposal put to the Government by the Electricity Council with a decision taken by the Government. I have already said that the previous Government had taken no decision and that we would not have accepted this increase.
  Mr. Varley: I find that incredible. The Conservatives never gave us open government when they were in office as they promised, but in a brief blissful moment of open opposition this is what the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said in the House on 13th March:
  "The electricity boards are pressing for fuel adjustment clauses for domestic tariffs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 327.]
  How did he know about it? He knew about it because the Electricity Council cleared with the last Government a submission to the Price Commission on this very matter. We even know the date; it was last December. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, a Treasury
  780
  Minister at that time and will have known all about it. What is more, he will fully have approved of it. He was in no position to do otherwise.
  His Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said quite flatly on 17th December,
  "At a time of the most acute energy shortage and in our present financial difficulties, it is anomalous—to say the least—that we are subsidising coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 962].
  "Ah", the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford will say—he is squeezing every drop of political capital out of this—"but we did not know that this would mean a disproportionate increase for night storage users". If the right hon. Gentleman wants us to believe that, he will have to pull the other one.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. We knew what the Electricity Council's proposals were. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends should get so excited. I said so in my speech. I said it on 13th March. I have said it again this evening. We knew what the situation was. I said that they had not been accepted by the Government—nor, in this case, would they have been accepted.
  Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman must not squirm in this way. I have not yet finished. There is more I need to say about this.
  I have quoted the Electricity Council's official Press handout which was issued three weeks after the General Election. This is what it says:
  "Increases to the domestic customer will be in the range of 0·3 of a penny for every unit used".
  I repeat—"for every unit used".
  Now my hon. Friends may say, "But an old-age pensioner in Ealing or Nuneaton would not immediately realise the full implications of that statement as far as off-peak charges are concerned". And, of course, my hon. Friends are absolutely right. But the right hon. Gentleman is not an innocent old-age pensioner. He is a former Minister for Energy.
  Now we know from that impeccable and authoritative source, the Peterborough column in the Daily Telegraph.

  781
  that he never really got to know how to do the job. It said recently:
  "Mr. Jenkin had been Minister for Energy for only seven weeks when the election was fought and was still working himself into the job".
  I am sure that every hon. Member will wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the crash course that he is taking at the Tory Central Office version of the Open University. He has just admitted that he knew that 0·3p for every unit used included off-peak units.
  After all, the penny—or 0·3 of a penny—even dropped with the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) a month ago. He had an Adjournment debate about night storage heating on 24th May—a golden opportunity for the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to sound forth a blast of indignation on behalf of consumers of night storage electricity. Six hon. Members spoke in that debate, but the right hon. Gentleman was not one of them.
  Mr. Mellish: Why was that?
  Mr. Varley: Until today, the House has never heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman about the impact of off-peak electricity. His silence up to this moment has been totally disgraceful.
  Now, six months after they knew that this price increase was coming, three months after it was announced and a month after the House debated it, the Opposition have finally got around to giving the subject half a Supply Day—the off-peak half. If they believe this to be—
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) rose—
  Mr. Varley: No. I will not give way.
  Mr. Lawrence Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, he must not be pressed to do so.
  Mr. Varley: If the Opposition believe this to be a matter of such urgent consequence, why did they not slap down a motion of censure against us on their first Supply Day after the Chancellor announced the price increases in his Budget? It is an interesting fact that they did choose energy as the subject for their first Supply Day, and the right
  782
  hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was the principal Opposition speaker. But the topic they chose was North Sea oil, and they did not force a vote. Now, noting the genuine concern felt widely on this matter, they have decided to jump aboard the bandwagon.
  It is not even as though the article of faith which has now been annunciated by the right hon. Gentleman is something that the Tory Party has always had. Far from it. Under this proposed increase, the ratio between standard rates and off-peak rates will be 60 per cent., almost exactly what it was 10 years ago when the Conservatives were in power. At that time, it was 58 per cent. That was the ratio when the right hon. Gentleman came into the House, and he never uttered a squeak about it. No wonder, since before that, under his party, the ratio had been 75 per cent. It was only under a Labour Government in 1965 that it came down to 50 per cent.
  The Leader of the Opposition has the brass neck to tell us that the phoney war is over. Never have an Opposition been so brazenly attempting to make political capital out of a decision for which they were primarily responsible. I refer not just to the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford. No fewer than 10 members of the last Cabinet who were accessories to this decision have had the nerve to write to me to protest about it. They include the right hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), Carshalton (Mr. Carr) and Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). What an ignominious roll call of phoney warriors! Their behaviour reveals their opportunism and their obsessive hatred of nationalised industries.
  After all, the price for domestic oil consumers has doubled over the last few months, but they have not put down a belated motion asking us to phase the oil price increases for those with oil-fired central heating. I well remember seeing an advertisement not long ago which said:
  "Oil—the cheapest form of central heating."
  Mr. Tom Boardman: How many letters of protest has the

  783
  Secretary of State received from his hon. Friends?
  Mr. Varley: I will tell the House this: I have not received one from the right hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman), who was Minister for Industry in December when the Electricity Council asked him whether it could go to the Price Commission with fuel adjustment clauses. If anyone is responsible, he is.
  The trouble is that the Opposition detest the nationalised industries but never hesitate to use them mercilessly as instruments of their economic policy. In fact, the workers in the public sector have been the victims of their pay policy. It was the publicly-owned utilities which their pricing policies compelled to accumulate massive deficits. In the case of electricity, the prospective deficit was £500 million. That is the reason for the heavy price increases that we are debating tonight.
  The Opposition motion calls for a "phasing" of the off-peak increase. That is Jenkinese for a delay. A delay means a revenue loss and a revenue loss means a subsidy, but the right hon. Gentleman is on record on the subject on 13th March. He said nothing about differential rates, but he said:
  "It is now nonsense to go on subsidising energy prices in a period of energy shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 327.]
  Now, on 20th June, they demand a subsidy. They actually do U-turns in opposition.
  We agree with the right hon. Gentleman's latest incarnation, not his previous one. We are subsidising electricity to the tune of £200 million this year. If the Jenkin of 13th March had had his way and we had accepted that it was
  "nonsense to go on subsidising energy prices"
  —his words—electricity prices would be going up even more.
  The contortions of the Opposition are beneath contempt and I will not trouble further with them. I want to deal with the genuine concern expressed by my hon. Friends. They will share my scorn for the untenable position of the Opposition, but they will want to know, and have every right to know, why the Gov
  784
  ernment accepted electricity price increases that the Opposition bequeathed to us.
  In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced three priorities for this Government, and my hon. Friends rightly cheered them. One was housing—£350 million extra. The second was food subsidies—£500 million. The third will cost £860 million in 1974–75 and £1,250 million in the twelve months from 22nd July; that is the increase in social security benefits, including the biggest-ever pension increase, and including—please note—an increase in the heating allowance. That was against the background of the biggest post-war economic crisis—my hon. Friends and I fought the election on that—and against a background of a prospective £1,400 million deficit in the finances of the nationalised industries, again bequeathed to us by the feckless mismanagement of the Conservative Party. That is why we had to accept this intolerable price increase.
  My hon. Friends will accept this, but they will ask: why did the increase for off-peak users have to be proportionately so much larger than the general increase? They will say, "We understand that this must be so if there is a flat increase of 0·3p per unit, but why cannot the increase for domestic off-peak users be scaled down to soften the blow?"
  What has most upset my hon. Friends and those who bought night storage heaters is that the advertising for this form of heating promised half-price electricity. Under the new price structure, night storage charges will be about 60 per cent. of the standard charge per unit. It is a bit confusing, but adding a flat 0.3 per cent. to both rates—the low off-peak rate and the standard rate—brings about that situation.
  Off-peak charges were about 50 per cent. of the standard charge, but they will now be 60 per cent. That is where the sense of grievance lies, and that is where any adjustment should be sought. I discussed this yesterday with Sir Peter Menzies, the Chairman of the Electricity Council, and at my request he will be examining urgently what adjustment can be made to give relief to the domestic consumer on the off-peak rate.
  I shall be having further discussions with Sir Peter Menzies, and I shall also

  785
  be reviewing, as the amendment points out, the policy for energy prices. But the House will appreciate that very complex issues are involved and that this will take a little time. Meanwhile, my aim will be to restore the differential, so that the charge per unit for off-peak electricity will once again be 50 per cent. of the standard charge per unit.
  That is what consumers have asked for, and the restoration of half price electricity for off-peak users will remove the sense of injustice. I undertake to make a statement about the off-peak tariff before the House rises for the Summer Recess, with the aim of implementing the adjustment as soon as possible, and certainly by the autumn. I am sure that that fruitful season of the year will commend itself to the Opposition and I trust the House will accept that the Government are dealing with this matter fairly and with foresight.
  Our amendment is one which will, I know, be acceptable to electricity consumers, combining, as it does, a firm commitment to a review with a repudiation of the shoddy record of the Opposition. I commend our amendment to the House.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Fidler: I welcome the final words of the Minister, though I regret most of what he said in introducing what he regards as a final concession. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman spent so much time making a party political issue of this matter. I suppose hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches must welcome any opportunity for amusement in these—for them—rather difficult days.
  As a Member of Parliament representing about 77,000 constituents, I am more concerned to see that justice is done to them individually. To me it matters not what history can be quoted by the Opposition or the Government. I have to deal with correspondence from my constituents. and one correspondent says:
  "I hear that some Labour Members of Parliament are criticising the 70 per cent. charge on night storage heaters. I say three cheers to them.….
  I am not on a high income and live alone and at the time of installation the heaters were what I could afford and I am very satisfied with them. There are many people in my position and the fear of an increase is not very encouraging."
  786
  I selected a number of letters which I sent on to the right hon. Gentleman and I commend his Under-Secretary of State for the courtesy and speed with which he replied, but I am sorry that the replies did not conform to the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon. I wrote on 4th June and received a reply on the 14th, which was excellent, but in that letter the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I am not aware of any commitment on their part"—
  that is, the Electricity Council—
  "to maintain any precise relationships between off-peak and unrestricted rates".
  All I can say is that the Under-Secretary cannot possibly have read the publicity which continued in the Press right up to the end of 1973.
  The Minister went on to enclose a memorandum, and here I must criticise the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers for sending out what I regard as misleading information. I am referring to the memorandum headed: "Electricity price increase: May 1974. Note by the Department of Energy" which the Minister sent me in the hope that it would help me in my replies to my constituents.
  Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the document admit that increase will still leave losses, but surely that is irrelevant. Nobody has charged that at this stage the Government have an obligation to introduce such increases as will completely cover all the losses in this industry. The question at issue is not the general increase, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) dealt so adequately, but the distribution of the increase to each category of user of on-peak and off-peak electricity.
  In paragraph 3 the Minister agrees that the average increase is 30 per cent., but the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to admit today that the increase might be as high as 55 per cent. However, paragraph 4 of the document gives the game away. It says that for persons who are on full rate all the time the increase will be 10 per cent., where one-fifth of the usage—that is 900 out of 4,500 units—is at off-peak rates the increase will be 30 per cent., and where three-quarters of the usage—that is 9,000 out of 12,000 units—is at off-peak rates

  787
  the increase will be 50 per cent. In paragraph 5 he goes on to concede that the standard rate on its own is 32 per cent. more but the off-peak rate increase is actually 67 per cent. calculated on its own. The right hon. Gentleman referred today to the difference between on-peak and off-peak remaining only 0·5 per cent., with the standard rate going up to 1·25p and the off-peak rate going from 0·45p to 0·75p.
  The right hon. Gentleman said tonight that this makes a difference of 60 per cent. between on-peak and off-peak, but before the increase the difference was not 50 per cent.; it was actually less—47 per cent. The difference between on-peak and off-peak was less than 50 per cent.
  In the last paragraph of his letter the Minister goes on to refer to improved retirement pensions, sickness benefits and other social security benefits, and personal allowances and child allowances. That is fine, but completely irrelevant, because it ignores the special problem of those duped by false publicity about special advantages which decided people to go for night storage heaters instead of other forms of heating.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: My right hon. Friend had the political stature today to announce in his speech measures which will meet the quite legitimate outrage of people who felt conned. Cannot the hon. Member have the political stature to welcome the proposals?
  Mr. Fidler: I have, and I shall, if the hon. Member will have patience.
  Adding 0·3p to each unit of on-peak and off-peak electricity produces a gross out-of-balance of electricity costs compared with the previous method of adding a percentage increase to each. Another constituent of mine, Mr. Marsh, has given me details of the effect that the proposed present rates will have. His annual bill under the current rates totals £160·71. On the new basis it will work out at £258—an increase of 61 per cent.
  I would have urged the Minister, tonight, instead of having this 0·3p on both on-peak and off-peak electricity, to have made a clear statement that as from tonight, without waiting for some
  788
  announcement before the Summer Recess, he would restore the old differential percentage between the rates.
  I want to emphasise one other thing, and only one other, so as to allow other hon. Members time to speak. With a little knowledge of the industry, having in the past been associated with electricity consumer councils, I know that the great drive has been to persuade people—not necessarily those in unfortunate circumstances—elderly people, or people with little income—but all users—to use night storage heaters to save electricity capacity so that plant could be continually used instead of lying idle at different times of the day and night. To achieve this some inducement is necessary. Even if there were not these differentials in the past, to make the best use of the plant available the right hon. Gentleman should, ab initio, instead of this half rate, be inducing people to use electricity for heating or any other purpose throughout the night hours when demand is at the minimum.
  Of course I welcome the announcement he has made—but with this proviso: it is not enough to say that he has asked the electricity authorities to consider the matter favourably; it is not enough, for me, that he should have said today that he hopes to be in a position to make an announcement by the end of July about something to come into operation before the onset of winter. If he is convinced by the arguments not only from this side but from his own side of the House, let him go that extra mile by announcing that he will withdraw the present intention of adding 0·3p and restore the differential, percentage-wise, between on-peak and off-peak electricity, that existed before.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I want in the first place to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done this evening. Rarely have I heard a case by the Opposition demolished so swiftly by just two very appropriate sentences from the Government Front Bench.
  The performance by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)—who has gone—was staggering in its effrontery. We went together to Canada to look at the nuclear production of electricity. He was a pleasant

  789
  travelling companion—I have no complaint there—but during our trip he did not give any evidence that he was subject to loss of memory, but he has given plenty of such evidence tonight.
  He seemed to object to, and to describe in general terms as deceitful, the advertising by the area electricity boards relating to night storage heating. Yet most of that advertising went on when he was a Minister, and when his right hon. and hon. Friends were Ministers, and they raised no objection to it at the time. If Ministers are to be held responsible now for electricity board activities, Ministers were equally responsible at that time.
  Also during the passage of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill the hon. Gentleman said on several occasions that his Government at that time could not continue indefinitely with a policy of subsidising electricity prices and that sooner or later the industry would have to get back to commercial viability. That is what I mean by loss of memory.
  During the General Election campaign a number of questions were put to me, no doubt as a result of my known interest in electricity supply, about the effect of coal and oil price increases on electricity prices. The questions came from those who attended meetings, people who were again to be my constituents. I said that the effect would probably amount to a 50 per cent. increase on an average.
  There is, therefore, surely no argument between the two sides of the House about the inevitability of increases in the price of electricity, a secondary fuel source, bearing in mind that all other fuel costs have been increasing at the same time. But I hope that the House will not overlook the fact that retail electricity supply prices during the four years from 1968 until 1972–3 went up by only half of the extent of the general rise in the retail price index, which is tremendously to the credit of this nationalised industry.
  The question now is whether the inevitable increase in electricity prices is being spread fairly over the various classes of user, and whether the tariff structure is being arranged in the most desirable way. A difficulty arises here because electricity cannot be sold like little apples. There are two main components in electricity tariffs: the charge
  790
  related to capital costs and the charge related to running costs. Electricity cannot be stored as such—it must be consumed at the moment it is made. Therefore maximum demand charges meet peak costs in the ordinary way and off-peak electricity can be supplied relatively cheaply.
  The House may be interested to know that the cost of fuel represents half the cost of peak electricity units, but nine-tenths of the cost of off-peak units. Therefore if fuel costs jump, as they have, then every unit of electricity, whether produced on or off peak must bear an equal burden of cost. That is a fact of life—part of the inherent economics of the electricity supply industry from which we cannot escape.
  But having said that, in adjusting their tariffs to reflect the inescapable fuel cost, the industry has done the exercise rather crudely. I suspect that there is a hidden clash between the interests of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the interests of the area electricity boards. The truth is that night storage heating has been so successful in this country that it has succeeded in producing something of an artificial mid-day peak. This is becoming a near embarrassment to the CEGB.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the newer forms of night storage heaters do not reinforce themselves during the day? It is the older ones which do that. Therefore this is not a cumulative effect.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Lady's intervention assists my argument. It is because the peak was building up in the middle of the day that this new provision has been made. With the latest contracts it is true that there is no mid-day boost. That does not apply however to existing agreements. I think there has been a clash of interests between the CEGB and the area boards and the CEGB at heart is now not too enthusiastic about block storage heating. It is not the kind of thing that it necessarily wants and it has succeeded in getting much of its own way.
  The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was, for once, accurate when he said that the plant used at night is not necessarily being used in

  791
  the best way, and I hope that my right hon. Friend in his discussions with the chairman of the Electricity Council will ask Sir Peter Menzies to look at the whole incidence of the new load curve over the 24 hours. I think that a more sophisticated analysis could then be made of the balance of costs between running and capital costs. It might be found then that a greater relief could be given to the users of storage heaters than my right hon. Friend has announced tonight.
  8.43 p.m.
  Dr. Michael Winstanley: I shall be brief because this is a straightforward, simple issue and the facts are quite clear. In addition, I have a sore throat and I doubt whether I could remain audible for long. This is a much happier occasion for the House than some we have experienced this week. When I came into the House after the last election I honestly felt that we might see this minority Government situation doing something to restore the power of Parliament over the Executive—a power which it seemed had rather disappeared. I have not seen many signs of that since then, but perhaps this debate is such a sign.
  This debate is very different from some we have had recently. We are dealing with precisely the kind of matter upon which the House ought to be able to exercise its authority over the Government without precipitating all sorts of violent constitutional crises. It is the kind of issue on which Parliament ought to be able to dictate to the Government. We have a situation in which for a long time electricity boards have been selling night storage heaters in which off-peak electricity was used, on the grounds that people would get that electricity at half price. The advertisements were saying this.
  There are three aspects to this question. The first is the welfare aspect, about which bodies like Help for the Aged, the Child Poverty Action Group, Gingerbread and so on, were concerned. There was the feeling that elderly people might get into difficulties and would no longer be able to go on using these appliances. It was felt that many might have recourse to paraffin heaters which are not
  792
  altogether satisfactory. There were certain dangers.
  Secondly, there was the fair trading aspect. Had a private commercial company suddenly changed its policy in this way, had it sold an article with the promise that supplies would be provided at a certain price and then the price had changed, we would all have felt extremely angry. We would have felt that it was a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act.
  In fact, I pursued the matter from that point of view. I wrote to the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, hoping that he would refer the matter to his inspectors to prosecute. I received a letter from him saying that my letter had been transferred to the Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Subsequently I had a letter from the Minister saying:
  "If you think that the advertisements contravene the Trade Descriptions Act, you should bring the facts to the attention of the Chief Trading Standards Officer …."
  But I had written to him in the first place. I began to think that it would go round and round in circles before anything happened.
  For that reason, I wrote to the Director General of Fair Trading. He replied:
  "I see no reason to doubt that Electricity Boards will carefully reconsider the manner in which they promote the sale of night storage heaters following the recent price increases"—
  but what about those people who had already bought them? The letter went on:
  "… and any statements they make will … be subject to the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act."
  That is all very well as regards any statements that they make, but what about the ones that they had already made? It seemed clear to me that it was in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act.
  Finally, there is the economic and energy aspect. That too is important. The Government want people to use off-peak electricity. If the policy is not changed, there is no doubt that night storage heaters are a dead duck. We have to restore the differential if we want people to use them.
  I come now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), to which I listened with interest. The first part of it apportioned the blame, and I listened to that

  793
  with some enjoyment. However, I am concerned not so much with whose fault it is but with who can do something about it and put matters right. Clearly that responsibility rests upon the Government.
  If I heard the Secretary of State aright, he undertook to provide something in the way of a safety net for those in special need, rather like the safety net which has been provided already for those in special difficulties, such as elderly people. If that is so, we on the Liberal Bench welcome it and will support it. The Secretary of State also undertook to use his powers in such a way—which he did not outline—that, in the coming few days or weeks, he would restore the differential which existed previously.
  If the Secretary of State can confirm that before we rise for the Summer Recess he will announce in the House that the differential has been restored, all that I can say is that, if the House divides on this motion, I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. On this occasion that, to us, would be a not uncongenial experience.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman heard me correctly. I shall be having further discussions with the Electricity Council with a view to restoring the differential to 50 per cent. of the normal rates, and before the House goes into recess I shall certainly report to it.
  Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his confirmation. Therefore, this has been a happy occasion. It has done something to restore the power of Parliament. I hope that, as long as this place exists, Parliament will maintain that power over the occupants of the Treasury Bench, whoever they happen to be.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: As one of the leaders of the original revolt against the Government's proposals, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain my position.
  I deal first with what happened originally. The Tory Government left us a deficit on our desks of £500 million. They left it there surreptitiously, like something which a dog leaves behind a
  794
  door and which is very unpleasant to pick up. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer picked up £200 million of it, but the rest he could not pick up and had to leave to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
  The Tory Government were guilty—perhaps I should not say "guilty"; but the Tory Government had approved the fuel cost adjustment charges. They had taken them to the Price Commission and had them approved. Therefore, they are now trying to blame the Labour Government for something that they would have done if they had remained in power.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: No.
  Mr. Tuck: Yes.
  Mr. MacArthur: No.
  Mr. Tuck: Absolutely certainly, yes. I cannot imagine anything more contemptible.
  Mr. MacArthur: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman for making that ludicrous and untrue suggestion?
  Mr. Tuck: It is neither ludicrous nor untrue. It is on the record.
  Mr. MacArthur Mr. MacArthur rose—
  Mr. Tuck: I shall not give way again. I must be brief.
  Therefore, I could not possibly vote with the Opposition on this disgraceful motion which seeks to blame us for what they would have done.
  Of course, it does not excuse this Government's doing the very same thing. That was the view that I expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, to the Chief Whip, and to other Members of the Labour Party. I know that the absolute increases were the same throughout. However, a small increase on off-peak charges is far more serious to a poor, hard-hit person than is the same increase on the standard charges to a Cabinet Minister. Therefore, I objected strongly to what we were doing. I understood my right hon. Friend's predicament, but I felt that something should be offered by my right hon. Friend or I should have to abstain from voting tonight.

  795
  Then came the amendment to the motion. That did not seem to rectify the situation. It was a milk-and-water amendment. It made no improvement whatever. Therefore, I came into the Chamber tonight feeling that reluctantly I would have to abstain from voting.
  Then my right hon. Friend gave his forthright undertaking. He has undertaken to review the whole situation. His undertaking meets the Opposition's objection. They did not ask us to abolish the whole of the increase. They suggested that it should be
  "phased so as to avoid hardship to pensioners, the disabled and other hard-pressed householders."
  That is exactly what my right hon. Friend has undertaken to do. He will review the whole situation and bring in this phasing so as to avoid hardship to these people.
  I have not so far had reason to doubt my right hon. Friend's word. I have had reason to doubt the words of certain other people—for example, that the United Kingdom would not be taken into the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the British people—but I have had no reason to doubt my right hon. Friend's word. He has cut the ground from beneath the Opposition. He has pulled the rug from under their feet. He has met their objection. He has undertaken to bring in this phasing before the House rises for the Summer Recess, which will be before the new prices come into operation in August.
  I am satisfied with that assurance. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and categorically state that my vote tonight will unhesitatingly be with the Government.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: We are all delighted to hear what the Minister has said this evening. But what the Minister must not do without some rebuke is precisely what he did do. He came to the Dispatch Box as a model of outraged innocence, like some sort of male Lady Bountiful spilling his bright ministerial promises from a cornucopia, when he would not have been saying any of those things had not the Opposition forced him to do so. It is high time for us, in this debate, to look at the sequence of the events.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I really mean that. On 24th May her hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) did the House a great favour by initiating a debate on this issue. I refer the hon. Lady to HANSARD for 24th May when, in reply to her hon. Friend, I said:
  "It has been said that we should take cognisance of this point. We have already taken cognisance of that point. I concede that a Government who were not concerned about the important issue the hon. Gentleman raised would be a very foolish Government This Government listen and learn and are receptive to the point of view expressed by hon. Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 818–19.]
  In the light of that statement, will the hon. Lady withdraw the comments that she has just made?
  Mrs. Knight: No, I shall not so much withdraw them as enlarge upon them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that.
  The story does not begin there. Even if it did, what the hon. Gentleman has read out shows that the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) raised the matter provided that opportunity. It was only because my hon. Friend raised the matter that it began to come to the forefront. But before that happened, it was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), showing the powers and ability of some sort of political Sherlock Holmes, who winkled out the fact of these electricity price increases. It was only my two hon. Friends, followed by myself when I tabled a motion on the Order Paper, who caused the letters to start to come in, when hon. Members on the Government benches began to get worried. But I wonder how many of them signed my motion on this matter.
  Mr. William Hamilton: We would not touch it.
  Mrs. Knight: The hon. and talkative Member has given the game away. The fact is that far too many times in this House hon. Members will not support something that is right simply because they do not like the Member who has put it forward in the first place. That is a great shame.

  797
  The situation would not have arisen at all had not the Government, when they came to office, given the miners such a huge increase.
  Mr. William Molloy: Huge?
  Mrs. Knight: The present situation indicates how right were the previous Government when they said that because the miners had a dirty, dangerous and horrible job, they should have a bigger rise in wages than anyone else. But they also said that, in allowing a wage increase, 16½ per cent. was the limit to which the country could go without stoking the fires of inflation. How right my right hon. and hon. Friends were.
  Mr. Molloy: They were wrong. The figures were messed up.
  Mrs. Knight: This situation is attributable, to quite a degree, to that enormous and disproportionate wage increase.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Lady has now said something that is very serious and not true. The likely increase in the electricity supply industry deficit of £500 million did not all come, as the hon. Lady suggested, from the miners' wage settlement. One-third came from that. The other two-thirds came from the increase in oil prices.
  Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman must listen. I said that it was one of the things that contributed to the present situation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading my speech in HANSARD tomorrow, when he will see that that is what I said.
  The point I particularly want to make was briefly mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley). It is something about which the House should be concerned. I believe that all the time the present situation continues we are in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act. The chairman of one electricity board has said in a letter:
  "The Board has always sought to avoid misleading … the public … we have never gone further than to assure consumers that the off-peak rates will always be favourable".
  That is a lie. It was stated not merely that the off-peak rates would be favourable but that they would be half-price. The letter is dated 26th April. I have
  798
  here a folder from the Midlands Electricity Board headed:
  "Electric central heating using half price electricity".
  That went out on 6th May, although it was on 27th March that the alterations in pricing were announced. That is a clear contravention of the Act, Section 11(2) of which says:
  "If any person offering to supply any goods gives, by whatever means, any indication likely to be taken as an indication that the goods are being offered at a price less than that at which they are in fact being offered he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence."
  If the MEB or any other electricity board had withdrawn those misleading advertisements immediately they knew they were misleading, there would not have been a case. But I beg the Under-Secretary to recognise that that folder seems to be in breach of the Act.
  A constituent has written to me saying:
  "Night storage appears to have been one long con-trick. Since its inception, it has already been reduced from 10 hours per night to 8 hours, without the mid-day boost that was allowed at the beginning. Thus recent investors lose two hours a night on the cheap rate, in many areas."
  There can be little doubt that that is in contravention of the Fair Trading Act. Apparently, we are in breach of two Acts. Section 34(1) of that Act reads as follows:
  "Where it appears to the Director that the person carrying on a business has in the course of that business persisted in a course of conduct which:

  (a) is detrimental to the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom, whether those interests are economic interests or interests in respect of health, safety or other matters, and

  (b) in accordance with the following provisions of this section is to be regarded as unfair to consumers."

  If the actions of the House in directing the electricity boards as to how they shall behave in this regard are, as they seem to me clearly to be, in breach of laws which the House has passed, I know that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is a serious matter, and it is perhaps one that he will examine.
  I warmly welcome what the Secretary of State said. The Opposition have won the battle hands down, and we are delighted. I ask the Minister, in view of

  799
  the evidence which I have offered, to recognise that there is a real need for extreme urgency so that we shall not be in breach of the law for a moment longer than necessary.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on his outstanding and lively contribution. I thank him on behalf of my constituents who made the great mistake in the past of buying night storage heaters. It is clear that increased electricity charges can mean the death of night storage heaters. I cannot say that there will be much regret at their passing. They are not a particularly attractive form of central heating. The user is compelled to flood his home with heat once the unit has been topped up, even though the day may be sunny. To that extent I am extremely sorry for those who have lumbered their homes with these units. I do not think that they are a secure form of heating to buy in future.
  People cannot be expected to have faith any more in the electricity boards and their claims about cheap off-peak electricity. I fear that night storage heaters may become the most expensive sideboards in the world. They will be a challenge to every do-it-yourself enthusiast to turn into something useful. I understand that the "innards" of night storage heaters are mainly brick. That can be broken into sections to throw at electricity board salesmen. The heaters could then be turned into useful cupboards in the home in which to store, for example, coal scuttles.
  If there is a lesson for my hon. Friends, it is that the nationalised industries should not ape the dubious commercial practices of private enterprise. We should no longer allow them to do so. The sales policy of electricity boards in pushing off-peak electricity, knowing in the long run that it would have to rise in price—and we have probably not yet seen the end of price rises—has badly let down the supporters and advocates of public ownership.
  One of the great reasons for the indignation caused throughout the nation is that people expect something better than this from the nationalised industries.
  800
  They think that they should not have the morality of a private enterprise huckster. It is important that in future the sales efforts of nationalised industries should be based on truth. They must resist any temptation to copy the sales practices of the private sector which under the previous Government were applauded.
  I consider it extraordinary and almost immoral that the Opposition are now endeavouring to make political capital out of a situation that was created while they were in office. I hope that the House will repudiate their impudent amendment.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I welcome without reserve, except the reserve of reading it in cold print, the announcement that was made by the Secretary of State for Energy. I feel partly responsible, along with others, for this debate taking place because I introduced the Adjournment debate on 24th May. The undertaking given today does not perhaps exceed my wildest dream of 24th May, but it is somewhere near it. I sincerely welcome it.
  I welcome it, too, on behalf of the more than 2 million users of night storage heaters. Had the debate not taken the turn that it has, I was going to analyse the dozens of letters I have received from consumers of off-peak electricity. My analysis showed me that three out of every five letters came from declared elderly people, or chronically sick people, and very often from people who were both chronically sick and elderly. I have a letter here, which I shall not read, from an 80-year-old couple who are chronic bronchitics. The point made by all the elderly people—I am sure hon. Members who have received similar letters will agree—was that warmth is an essential and that they would not be able to afford night storage heaters next winter. They simply did not know what to do.
  We have now had the undertaking to restore the differential. What will this actually mean in percentage increases to the consumer? We know that it was to have been 70 per cent. Can we be assured that elderly people will be able to afford this form of heating? The Under-Secretary of State in his reply on 24th May referred to the special heating

  801
  allowances which are to go up by 10p, 20p and 30p in their different categories. This does not seem to me a sufficient increase to cover the higher cost of off-peak electricity. I should welcome clarification on that point.
  Many of those who have written to hon. Members will not qualify for special heating allowances, yet they are people with very slender means. I ask the Government to pay special attention to those who do not qualify for special heating allowances and also to those, many of whom have also written to us, who regularly look after elderly subnormal people in small residential homes. They, too, are going to face great difficulty.
  The question has been raised why the Secretary of State has made this announcement. We heard statements here recently by some of his hon. Friends that they might fail to vote with the Government tonight. We have heard references to various pressure groups on both sides of the House. But I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman would give in to pressures of this kind. What he has done is to give in to the pressure of the truth of the case.
  In this connection, perhaps we can have an even more happy ending to the debate. I think that the Under-Secretary of State has been perhaps wrongly criticised for his part in the debate on 24th May. He was on top form. It was his case that was weak. It is no wonder therefore that the debate has taken the turn that it has taken.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement because it seems to be an equitable solution to the difficult problem of maintaining the former ratio between the standard and off-peak tariffs. He seems to have found a formula which is fair and which, hopefully, will not create excessive problems for the electricity industry.
  What is disquieting is that, leaving aside the incredible complexities and technicalities of the pricing of electricity, it must have been clear to the Cabinet that in their economic policy the dam against prices is an essential part of the overall strategy, not only as part of the famous compact with the trade unions but in relation to the nation's confidence
  802
  over prices. It is incredibly difficult to understand the insensitivity of the Cabinet to a 70 per cent. price increase on a vital domestic commodity for 2 million families, and I do not understand why it should have taken massive representation from Labour Members and continual letters and badgering for the Cabinet to come to the view that something has to be done.
  There is another more serious point. I welcome the fact that we have a Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. It is her job to exercise some effective surveillance over the whole spectrum of prices as they affect the domestic consumer, and some effective surveillance over the practices of major suppliers of goods and services. I was staggered that when I received the first representation from one of my constituents on the matter—I have no personal interest in the matter, because my house is centrally heated by gas—on referring it to my right hon. Friend I found that she had no jurisdiction in the matter. The letter was passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I admire him, but his rôle is clearly to explain, defend and promote the interests of the great public corporations which are interested in the supply of energy. He does this with great skill and verve, as we saw tonight, but in the interests of the consumer we need an independent Minister or public body who is from time to time able to tell the public corporation—whether it be concerned with electricity, gas, coal, railways or whatever—that a particular price increase or trading policy might seem all right to them but in the interests of the consumer should be restrained, modified or even cancelled.
  If that is not done I cannot see how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices can exercise her rôle effectively. She must have a voice in the affairs of these great corporations, which have such a vital impact on our day-to-day lives. If my right hon. Friend had had this authority and had been allowed to exercise her surveillance at the beginning of this unfortunate episode it would never have got this far on the floor of the House.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have had immediate discussions and taken immediate action to prevent this incredible disparity between a 30

  803
  per cent. rise for the standard tariff and 70 per cent. for the off-peak tariff from going through. The debate may have been valuable for redressing the unfairness between the different tariffs, but it has been valuable, too, in drawing attention to the need of the general public for a powerful independent body or Minister to protect its interests vis-à-vis the great public corporations. I have immense admiration for the technical skill and the achievements of these corporations, but I believe they are not responsive enough to personal individual problems which their pricing or trading policies may cause to families and I hope that that lesson will be acted upon by the Cabinet.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is the most satisfying debate I have attended since I have been a Member of this House, because by calling it we have achieved exactly what we set out to do. I have had more letters on the subject of night storage heaters than on any other subject, apart from rates and nurses' pay.
  On Tuesday I entertained a party of old-age pensioners from one of the villages in my constituency. I explained the customs of the House of Commons, and after tea I said, "Would you like to ask me any questions?" Immediately from all over the room they all said, "Can you not do something about night storage heaters?" That was not the sort of question I had expected. I had expected questions about the history or methods of Parliament. But electricity was clearly the subject that was uppermost in their minds.
  Those people had already played their part. They had written to me. I had passed on their letters to the Minister and the Board. We are all very grateful to my hon. Friend for Conway (Mr. Roberts) for having brought things to a head during the Adjournment debate at the end of May.
  I cannot believe that the Secretary of State for Energy, pleasant thought he is, would have had that meeting with the chairman of the board yesterday and come out with the very satisfactory assurance he has now given us if it had not been for my hon. Friend the Member
  804
  for Conway and for those many hon. Members on both sides who have pressed for the righting of this injustice.
  I do not agree with the hon Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) in her dislike of storage heaters. I strongly disagree. I believe that storage heaters provide the safest form of heating for elderly people, and I should not like to see them go out of use. I am very glad, therefore, that the Minister has recanted. With good sense he will now give these people the fair deal they were promised by the electricity board, of which, if it had not been for the action taken by hon. Members on both sides, they would have been cheated.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: Having heard the speeches of Conservative Members, knowing they had listened to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I am forced to conclude that the later speeches would constitute a doctor's precription to facilitate a vomit.
  The essence of this debate is a triumph for the House of Commons. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal bench. He said that backbench opinion would be listened to. Hon. Members on this side have the advantage of Tory Members, in that our opinions are very well listened to and have cognisance taken of them.
  The Trade Descriptions Act 1972 has been referred to. The electricity industry is a publicly-owned industry, which might have been liable for action under that Act. This is remarkable, because the Act was introduced to deal with the shyster lawyers and the twisters in private enterprise who have been conning ordinary people for years. No one expected that this would come from a publicly-owned industry. This must be a talking point. It would appear they have slipped a little below their very high standards.
  The right hon. Gentleman may have made a Freudian slip in his opening statement when he referred to our great publicly-owned industries. They are great, and they are publicly owned. That is why the Tories will not denationalise them, despite all we heard earlier today.
  Members on the Government side were indignant. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Conway made his speech during the Adjournment debate, one

  805
  would have thought that hon. Gentlemen who have occupied important positions in this sphere should have been in the House of Commons to have made it transparently clear that they, too, have had a responsibility in this. They waited for this debate in the hope that they could do a "Pontius Pilate"—wash their hands of the whole affair and advance themselves in white sheets as pure and innocent.
  My right hon. Friend's announcement is the result of the pressure that we on the Government side have been applying over the past few weeks. We have the great advantage over the Tories that we can apply pressure to Cabinet Ministers. We demand that they come to our meetings. They cannot descend once in a blue moon, as the Leader of the Opposition does on the 1922 Committee.
  We should not forget that vital part of my right hon. Friend's speech which exposed the hypocrisy of Conservative Front Benchers. This debate arose because it concerned a public industry. It would have been impossible if a massive private organisation had been concerned. It is the voices of the people, through their Members on both sides, which have encouraged my right hon. Friend to re-examine this problem. I am confident that he will restore the balance.
  I should be less than honest if I did not say that a proper examination should have been made and that this debate was unnecessary. I expect much more thorough examinations from Labour Ministers than from others. A wrong is to be righted, because the industry was accountable to this House. The debate has completely justified the principle of British public ownership.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: A prominent feature of both debates today has been the way in which, when Labour Members and Ministers want to get off the subject, they start attacking the 1922 Committee. One would think that they had been at one of its meetings. I know that they are jealous of the facilities that we have there. We heard a lot about it from the Prime Minister, and the. hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) obviously could not find a good argument and so followed in his master's footsteps. The more he does so, of course, the more
  806
  likely he is to get on the Front Bench—although it will be on this side of the House.
  I welcome this opportunity to intervene in the debate because I, too, have received many letters on this matter, particularly from the elderly, who have relied so much on this type of heating, and some real distress has been caused by the announcement of this huge increase in price.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that if a nationalised industry had not been involved we should not have been debating this topic tonight. I do not accept that. It could be said that had it not been for the fact that the increases were necessitated because a nationalised industry was involved we should not have had this debate.
  I do not want to belittle the efforts of the Electricity Council. This is an efficient industry, it does a good job of work. It is trusted, and it provides a good service to our constituents. That is why it was a shock to learn of this increase after such a successful advertising campaign for the use of storage heaters.
  The fact that by a debate in this House we can put right what we regard as wrong shows that democracy works. The changes would not have been quite so enthusiastically accepted by the Minister if there had not been certain happenings last night and earlier this evening, but I shall be out of order if I develop that theme any further.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: When I entered the Chamber I had no intention of participating in the debate, but after hearing the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I feel that her comments deserve support from this side of the House because my home is heated by storage heaters. I like them, and find them convenient. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am delighted, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my constituents, that my right hon. Friend has taken the decision that he announced this evening.
  It may be that those who purchased storage heaters some years ago assumed that conditions would never change, but such an assumption would have been rather foolish. Circumstances have a

  807
  habit of changing. Anyhow, I shall keep my storage heaters despite the criticisms that have been made of them, and I repeat that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement tonight.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) was seeking to suggest that my right hon. Friend was guilty of an excess of flexibility, because that is not so. It would be foolish if Opposition Members sought to uphold as a political virtue the excessive obstinacy with which this country was inflicted for a large part of the previous administration's tour of office. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the industry to make sure that the impact of the change is not severe.
  I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will have at the back of his mind a thought that has occurred to me, and that is that there is a grave danger in seeking to depress the revenue of the energy-producing industries in order to cushion society against the costs of fuel, light and power. Those who are interested in the mining areas know that one of the major reasons for the weakness of the coal industry in the late 1960s and early 1970s was that during the 1950s coal was very much under-priced. Because of that, the nation did not foot the bill for the subsidy which the coal industry was providing. The industry and those employed in it bore the brunt of the cost of the subsidy which the nation enjoyed.
  It was foolish for Britain to have such a sustained period of cheap coal or cheap energy, because cheap energy may have many serious disadvantages for the country during the years following a period of subsidy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have had that thought in his mind, and I trust that he will not be persuaded that the electricity industry—or the coal industry for that matter—should be expected to cushion society from the effects of inflation by taking upon itself an extremely heavy burden.
  The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) suggested that Government Members had little knowledge of the 1922 Committee. I rather thought he was hoping that some of us might at some time seek to belong to that organi
  808
  sation. I do not think that it has much attraction for myself or for any of my colleagues, because it is now 1974. As I said, circumstances change, and circumstances affecting consumers of electricity are bound to change.
  I am delighted therefore that, while change is severe, and the former change would have been extremely painful to many people, my right hon. Friend has taken the decisive and flexible and very happy decision he has been able to announce tonight.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Hannam: I welcome indeed the change of heart of the Secretary of State and the reintroduction he has promised of the half-price system of future tariffs. I can understand why he has done his own U-turn. After two successive defeats in the Lobbies the Government had to respond to the pressures which have built up in the House and in the country.
  I regret the tone in which the Secretary of State spoke in this debate, especially in the first half of his speech. I regret the personal attack he made on my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). His attack was based on a false assumption that the proposal to increase off-peak prices by the 70 per cent. figure which had been placed before the last Government would have been allowed. The Secretary of State implied that neither my right hon. Friend nor my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman)—a former Minister for Industry—would have resisted such an increase. I reject and I resent that accusation of double standards, because throughout the period of the last administration one thing we were doing was to restrain electricity prices in order to fight inflation. I could quote numerous examples—
  Mr. A. J. Beith: What the hon. Member has said confirms the impression which many people had that the depression of electricity prices at a crucial stage during the previous Government was one of the factors which occasioned so large an increase at this stage.
  Mr. Hannam: Certainly we sought to restrain prices because of the priority we

  809
  gave to the battle against inflation. We accepted that an increase in electricity prices had to take place, but what I am saying is that we would certainly have resisted and prevented such an increase as this, so disproportionate an increase in off-peak charges.
  I shall not say more about the right hon. Gentleman's speech, especially the first half of it, because it was not really typical of him. I hope he does not revert to that style on too many occasions. I do warmly welcome the undertaking he has given to reinstate the half-price tariff and I hope he will carry out this change as quickly as possible, because, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun), I believe that storage heaters have a long-term future and I believe that they will satisfy that demand, and especially in older Victorian houses where modern systems of piped central heating cannot be installed.
  There are several occasions during each Parliament when in this House we turn from set pieces of political confrontation, and this debate has been such an instance. The House has turned away from all the statistics and logistical arguments put forward by experts and we have experienced the full-blooded reactions of hon. Members on both sides reacting to the needs of a substantial section of the population who appear to have been unfairly treated.
  During the last 24 hours we have been engaged in two major political confrontations and tempers have run fairly high and, if I may be excused for saying so, a certain amount of heat was generated—especially by the Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) who, roughly at this time last night, we might consider was storing up heat for off-peak use, perhaps for a kind of mini-foot-warmer.
  In this debate we are in a lower key because the subject of off-peak electricity charges transcends party differences and indeed some 2 million householders have been anxiously awaiting this debate and its decision in the hope that the arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides might convince the Government that immediate action must be taken to reduce the level of off-peak tariff increases to a bearable level. It has been as simple as that.
  810
  What we required was action by the Secretary of State to reduce the disproportionate increases in the charges being levied on a group of people, consisting predominantly of pensioners, the disabled and low-income families, who look to us, as their constituency representatives, to stand up and fight for them. Tonight the will of the House of Commons has succeeded in bringing about a change of heart by the machine of Government, which with all its power, has had to listen and bend to the wishes of hon. Members who have spoken from their hearts about a situation which could and should have been avoided.
  Many different aspects of the problem have been touched on in speeches from both sides. In the previous debate this afternoon we heard discussed the dangers inherent in extending the area of nationalised, non-market uncompetitive monopoly industry. The off-peak electricity dispute points out the danger where, however hard Governments try to stay out of the day-to-day administration of the public sector, they are inevitably drawn back into decision making because of their ultimate responsibility to the taxpayer and the consumer, who can be left high and dry at the mercy of monopoly decisions on pricing and supply.
  I cannot deny, nor can the Government deny, that we are involved, however reluctantly, in certain management decisions of the nationalised industries. In coal, gas, electricity, the railways and steel, variations on the theme of intervention are constantly taking place. Electricity prices are allowed to rise by 20 to 30 per cent., but gas prices are held back. Government investment is related to productivity in one case, but not in another, as we heard in the statement on coal on Tuesday.
  Therefore, we have to accept that at this time of rapid inflation and the energy crisis threatening our national standards of living, the Government are involved in the mechanics of management of the public sector. We on this side would like to restrict that involvement to the least amount. However, it is our duty to protect the needy and low-income families of our community.
  Therefore, when we have a clear case like that under consideration tonight, a case of a sudden, disproportionate

  811
  increase in the cost of one of the basic essential commodities of life, the heating of our homes, we could normally expect action to be taken to spread the load of such increases and to avoid too heavy a burden falling on one helpless section of the community.
  The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Altricham and Sale (Mr. Barber), both stressed in statements on 17th December and 26th March that, although it was a matter of urgency that electricity prices should be increased, the amount of the increases would be limited. I can assure the House that a 70 per cent. increase would not have been approved by the previous Conservative administration, just as the Secretary of State has now decided not to do this. I do not believe that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer intended such a jump in price, although since March his handling of the economy has caused such economic depression that his room for manoeuvre is obviously severely curtailed.
  In our motion we asked for a phasing in of off-peak tariff increases. We did not argue against fuel cost increases having to be passed on. We did not dispute that every effort must be made to reduce the losses being made by the electricity boards.
  I am sure that in what we have been saying we have had the support of most Members of the House. We have said, "Let us help those hard-pressed members of the community by limiting the rise in prices to a bearable level in any one year and if possible enable the half-price system to continue." That is what we have achieved tonight. The Secretary of State has, in effect, accepted the terms of our motion. [Interruption.] He says he has gone much further. He has done exactly what we asked him to do.
  Because of the pressure exerted during the past few weeks from this side of the House, as well as from Members on the Government side, the machine of Government has had to bend to the will of Parliament. This is exactly what should happen in Parliament in a case such as this.
  I was looking forward to a Division tonight. I should like to point out some
  812
  thing which the Secretary of State for Social Services said when speaking in the debate on 28th March. She said:
  "A massive increase in electricity charges can be a body blow to an old-age pensioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 644]
  I thought that that was sufficient indication that we would have the right hon. Lady with us in the Lobby tonight. However, in view of what the Secretary of State has promised, it will be my right hon. Friend's intention to ask leave to withdraw the motion. The procedure of the House requires prior withdrawal of the amendment. If the Secretary of State withdraws his amendment, I undertake that my right hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw the motion.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Varley: By leave of the House, I will seek to reply to some of the points that have been raised. I can reply in just a few minutes, and, to assist the procedures of the House, I will withdraw my amendment.
  The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) seemed to suggest that I ought not to have attacked his right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman) in my opening remarks. I do not want to rake over that ground, now that we have reached such a happy state of affairs. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that his right hon. Friend told us on 13th March that he had accepted the fuel adjustment clauses. If he had understood the consequences of those clauses and how they would apply to night storage heaters he could have added a sentence or two about the effect which they would have. That was 13 days before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his Budget Speech. I have given the House an undertaking—
  Mr. MacArthur: I listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier. He did not say to what extent this undertaking would apply to the massive increase in off-peak heating charges for Scotland, which are on a different scale from those in England. Can he make some comment on that?
  Mr. Varley: I can only say that the situation is not comparable. I have the sponsorship, if I can put it that way, of

  813
  the fuel industries in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has some statutory responsibility for the electricity supply industry in Scotland. In the light of what I have said today, he will be looking at that situation to see whether any changes need to be made.
  Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman may be unaware—although he has responsibility for the fuel industry in England—that it is partly supplied by the South of Scotland Electricity Board—in parts of England which I am privileged to represent. May I press the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland deals with those parts of England affected by the South of Scotland Board?
  Mr. Varley: I will certainly draw that point to my right hon. Friend's attention.
  Mr. MacArthur: It is intolerable that the House should not be told tonight what the position is to be in Scotland and some parts of northern England following his statement. All I can assume is that he has rushed into a decision in face of the strength of the opposition to these proposals, and that no consideration has been given to this point whatever. We must demand a statement tonight.
  Mr. Varley: Throughout my speech and throughout most of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, has been present. He has noted everything that has been said. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point he has raised will be taken into consideration. It is not an easy matter to make adjustments. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) suggested earlier that a direction could be issued. That is not the case at all, and it will be necessary to engage in detailed discussions with the Electricity Council, which in turn will have to consult the Electricity Boards in order to implement the arrangement that I have made. That will take some time. Hon. Members will recall that I said that, before the House went into recess, I should come back and make a statement about progress.
  There are one or two other misconceptions to which I would draw attention.
  814
  The point was made forcibly by my hon Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Molloy) that the motion was an attack upon a nationalised industry and that the Opposition would not attack private industry in the same way. There is a great deal of truth in what he said. One has only to look at oil prices and at oil advertising to realise that perhaps there are matters there which could be made subject to procedures under the Trade Descriptions Act. I have before me a wodge of papers referring to oil central heating, issued not all that long ago. One paper points out that oil-fired central heating by Esso is 10 per cent. cheaper to install and 15 per cent. cheaper to run than gas-fired central heating. That is no longer the case, of course.
  The Opposition decided to base their motion upon the increase in the price of off-peak electricity. In their present skittish mood, I am not sure that they will not move a motion next week on oil prices and the 100 per cent. increase in the cost of oil-fired central heating. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford may even suggest that the Government set up a State buying agency to buy up all the oil at the docks. One can never tell, given the present mood of the Opposition.
  A number of other points were made in the debate, but I think that I have dealt with most of them. Before I withdraw the amendment, it only remains for me to repeat that I shall get down to urgent discussions with Sir Peter Menzies, the chairman of the Electricity Council. We shall be examining the situation as quickly as possible. We have conceded what the consumers asked for—that is, to remove their sense of injustice and to restore half-price electricity for off-peak users. When all the necessary discussions have taken place, I shall come to the House and report progress.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL
    Clause 2

      INCREASE IN LIMIT ON NUMBER OF MINISTERS IN COMMONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      9.54 p.m.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wish to make one or two critical remarks about this clause.
      All too often in this Chamber, we assume automatically that Bills come before the House for a very good purpose and, at this late hour, many hon. Members think that they are not worth debating. However, I was struck by the remarks earlier of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley). He said that the function of this House was to control the people who sat on the Treasury Bench. That is a most important principle which we should always observe and of which we should never lose sight. This clause may well cause us to lose sight of that principle.
      There was a time no doubt when the figure in Clause 2 was much lower than 91. I dare say that the number of paid servants of the Crown working in this Chamber as Members of it was quite small. In those days the English constitution, as it was at one time, the British Constitution, as it is now, was given greater expression from the point of view of parliamentary democracy than today.
      We have now reached a stage where the proportion of Members who are paid servants of the Crown is very high indeed. Surely the time has come for us to put a limit on their numbers. We ought not automatically to pass Bills whenever it appears necessary and convenient for a Government to have more Ministers.
      Mr. James Kilfedder: I think I am right in saying that in 1967 there were only 70 Ministers. There
      816
      has been a great increase. This is deplorable, because back benchers are losing their influence. The more jobs there are for those who support the Government, the less the influence of ordinary Members representing various regions of the country.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made the point that I wish to commend to the Committee.
      The old principle or doctrine of the separation of powers in the English constitution was so much admired by theorists such as Montesquieu that it was commended to Continental constitution-makers and was adopted by the Founding Fathers of the United States and enshrined in their constitution. However, while it has many merits, it never applied to the British or the English constitution. We prefer to mix the executive with the legislature and the judicial function. We have a system in which some of our judges are legislators and some—only some—of our legislators exercise the executive power. The smallness of the numbers is very important.
      Those Members of the other place who are judges are few in number compared with the total of those who are entitled to sit in that place. Therefore, that judicial element, except when that place sits in a judicial capacity, is there in only a representative, but useful, capacity.
      In the House of Commons we have an executive which is gradually becoming more dominant over the legislature. The strength of the executive is and should be in its control of the executive power. The strength of the legislature should be in its control of the executive.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the control of the executive by the legislature, may I ask whether he accepts that the Lord Chancellor should be discarded and a Minister of Justice appointed in his stead to be brought into this Chamber to be answerable to the legislature?
      Mr. Stanbrook: I think that raises a somewhat different point. In essence, the hon. Gentleman is asking for a Member of this Chamber who is able to answer for the Justice Department, as he would call it, in the House of Commons. There may be a good argument for having a

      817
      Member of this Chamber who answers for the head of the Justice Department, or, as at the moment, for the Lord Chancellor. We do not, strictly, have that at present. But the principle of having the head of the judiciary sitting in the other place as a Member, and yet also as a Member of that other place, is one which we have never disputed. It is of some value that we should mix these two functions. The point that I am trying to make—
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That the Ministers of the Crown Bill and the Pakistan Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harper.]

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Stanbrook: The point I am trying to make is that while it is useful and in accordance with our constitution and traditions to have those who represent one of the three branches of our constitution present in each of the others, so as to give full representation to the separate facets of our national life, we should keep a close watch upon the extent to which the one dominates the other.
  Our parliamentary democracy is founded upon the principle that the strength of the legislature is its control of the executive. Where we get an executive whose strength is derived not so much from control of the executive power but from control of the legislature, we are standing our national democracy on its head. That is not the way that parliamentary democracy should be applied or exists in principle. It is certainly not the way in which children are taught about the whole principle of parliamentary democracy.
  It may be asked, why raise this point at this time? If there is any time at which this point should be raised, it is
  818
  when the number of Ministers in the House of Commons is increased. We acknowledge that there should be a limit. We pass a law to say that there should be no more than a certain number who are servants of the Crown sitting in the House of Commons—especially at times of minority Government. So we should accept that as a principle. But every so often a Bill comes before the House increasing—as this clause does—the number of paid servants of the Crown sitting as Members of the House of Commons.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that from time to time we also increase the number of Members of the House of Commons and that that number has risen from 630 to the now ridiculous figure of 635, which is a much bigger increase than the increase in the number of Ministers proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Stanbrook: That may well be, but the proportion that the increase in this case bears—an increase of four to 95—is far greater than the increase of five in addition to 630. The process that I have described is right in both absolute and relative terms.
  We must set a limit and we must discuss this at some point. The best point is when the House of Commons is asked to say that there should be an increase in the number of its own Members who can draw a salary from the executive. That time has come now. We should say that if the limit is set at 91, it should remain at 91 and that the function of the House of Commons is to control that 91. By permitting, as it were, the recruitment to their numbers of an extra four, so as to make it 95, we are perhaps sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
  10.5 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) referred to part of the Second Reading debate, but it might be as well to go over some of the ground again for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present then.
  The first important point is that in 1965 a larger number of Ministers could be appointed than can be appointed under the Bill. Secondly, whereas one can understand that there are problems when

  819
  the numbers of Ministers are increased, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman stated and reasons that we know, the tasks of Ministers are obviously extended as long as a Government operate on the theory and principle that there will be more intervention in industry and in the life of the country generally than there was 10 or 15 years ago.
  When the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) points out that there has been such an increase since 1957, he is right to lay the stress on that time when Government intervention was much less than it became during the next decade. The expansion of the executive into areas about which it had expressed little concern occurred during the 1960s. That was when the Labour Government came into office pledged to intervene in a number of aspects of our national life in which hitherto the Government had not thought it necessary to intervene. The last Conservative Government, who were pledged to reverse that process, changed their mind and intervened, as much as, and in some respects even more than, the Government before them.
  It is becoming clear that this is one aspect of our national existence that must be recognised. The people, for good or ill, and I believe for good, understand that the Government have a responsibility to take action in the interests of the country as a whole. If they do not act in the way that the people think right, that Government's chances at the subsequent election will be that much less.
  This is a decision not of the Labour Party, of this Parliament, or of the last Parliament or the last Government; it is a decision of the people that they want certain actions to be taken by the Government. If things are not going as they expect or wish, they will expect the Government to take action. It was a response to that wish by the people as a whole that led both the previous Government and this Government to intervene in industrial and other areas in which Governments had not hitherto intervened.
  The Government are responsible for a high level of public expenditure. They are now responsible for nearly half of all the expenditure in the country—
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Too much.
  Mr. Sheldon: The previous Government did not change it, so the hon. and gallant Gentleman's quarrel is obviously with his own Government. In the 1920s the proportion of public expenditure was much lower.
  There is a definite need for Government Ministers to control the increase in expenditure. As long as we are to spend so much more, that expenditure must be controlled by the Government, responsible to this House. That is the only way in which we can operate.
  Therefore, we start with the premise that the Government find themselves intervening more and more, because of the wish of the people, and as a consequence take on more and more expenditure, and as a further consequence have to appoint Ministers to control that expenditure. If the House wants to change that process, it must go to its roots and cut out the intervention. Many Conservative Members wish to do that. They failed with their Government, because their Government accepted the wishes of the people.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: I think that the Minister is putting words into our mouths. He is saying the exact opposite to the intervention that I wish to make. The argument that he is making is strong, but the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has made is that there are not enough back benchers in proportion to the number of Ministers so as to give back benchers an adequate control of the executive. If there is more and more Government intervention, we want more and more back benchers in proportion to the number of Ministers. If we are to reduce the number of back benchers by increasing the number of Ministers, we might well restore the balance by having a few more hon. Members from Ulster.
  Mr. Sheldon: That is not the way in which I would look at the matter. On this occasion I speak as an individual and I say that we should consider the matter in another way. What we need are more effective back benchers with more tools and greater servicing so that they can properly carry out their function. As long as Governments have to acquire responsibilities they will have to appoint the Ministers to carry out the tasks that come before them. That is the task of

  821
  government and it is a task that Governments are willing to undertake.
  This measure would allow a small increase in the number of Ministers that a Government may appoint. We believe that it allows for a necessary increase for the reasons that we stated on Second Reading and for those that I have tried to make clear this evening. I hope that the Committee will give the clause an easy passage.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I do not wish to oppose this measure, but I wish to make one or two remarks about it. The Minister has said that Governments are intervening more and more. I am bound to say that I must agree with him. That is what is happening. It leads one to believe that it is not too much to say that one of the greatest threats to democracy is that our system has become so democratic that it is in danger of coming to a standstill. We are now asked to take another step and to authorise a few more Ministers.
  The fantastic work load that falls on Ministers both senior and junior is a terrible criticism of the way in which our parliamentary system operates. We are all familiar with seeing a new administration come in bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and full of enthusiasm. Within a few weeks they are clogged up and it is impossible to get at them. They are spending all the hours that God sends at their desks and the system has once again become constipated.
  It is often said, and quite rightly, that Ministers and Governments have no time to think. That is perhaps why we peck and scratch at one another like barnyard hens across the Floor of this honourable House to an extent that must be disgraceful and astonishing to people from outside who sit in the Public Gallery watching us. In this respect we would do well to take a lesson from those in another place. Matters are there discussed in a much more reasonable way. I say with the utmost respect to the Minister that it is not much of an argument to say, "Because you did not do it therefore we should not do it".
  I do not pretend to put forward a solution to all these problems at such a late hour or at any stage, but I feel that we should limit the number of Questions, in-
  822
  cluding Written Questions, that hon. Members can put to Ministers. The system should operate so that an hon. Member can put a Question when he wants to find out something in particular but he should not be allowed to make mere gestures to his constituents by tabling damned silly footling Questions merely to get himself into the local paper. I think that Ministers will all agree—and I am not likely to be one—that hon. Members should be rationed as to the number of letters that they can send to Ministers from their constituents. For example, if Mrs. Bloggins has lost her purse in a supermarket and writes to her MP asking him to do something about it, it is terribly easy merely to refer the matter to the Minister concerned. It must be hell to be on the receiving end. The system makes it easy for hon. Members, but that is a matter that we should consider.
  We should also consider limiting the length of speeches in the House. That is part of the required formula—and that is why I shall sit down now.
  Dr. Michael Winstanley: I agree very much with what the Minister has said about the need for more Ministers to share the load when there is a need for greater government intervention. I accept the argument that many Ministers and Government Departments are now doing things which were not formerly done and which need Ministers to undertake them.
  But I also accept some of the arguments put by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) with regard to accountability—that if we increase the number of Ministers we introduce possible dangers regarding accountability of the Government in relation to the rest of the House.
  10.15 p.m.
  I would be more sympathetic to Clause 2, increasing the number of Ministers from 91 to 95, if we were talking not about Ministers but about Ministries. I have had great difficulty in trying to find out which Minister is responsible in these large blunderbuss types of Department which have been created in recent years. The Secretary of State for the Environment has somewhat wide and ill-defined powers. When I write to the Department I get back all sorts of answers from all

  823
  sorts of people. We would do better if we knew who was responsible for what.
  For example, I very much regretted the merging of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security. Pensions are a different matter from running the National Health Service. The old order, when we had a Minister of Health responsible for the NHS to this House, was much more valuable. We knew just who was responsible. Accountability was then so much easier. The Department of the Environment is very unwieldy. If there is a fault, it is difficult to find out who is at fault.
  Despite all this, however, the Government obviously need more Ministers to carry out the responsibilities, but I accept what has been said about accountability. Accountability would be better served if we redivided some of these large Departments and made certain that the House knew who were in charge of what.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: There is merit in the argument that the more Ministers appointed from members of the governing party, the less chance the executive will have of being challenged by their own party. But there is one particularly strong argument for increasing the number of Ministers. Civil servants have a vested interest in keeping the number of Ministers as small as possible. The more stretched a Minister becomes by work, the more responsibility his civil servants get. It is a common complaint about Governments that, after the first year or so, Ministers, having started off trying to implement the party manifesto, are ground down by the variety of jobs they have to do—not least by the calls that this House makes on them—and in the end delegate more and more to their civil servants so that civil servants are making more and more decisions.
  Therefore, the more Ministers there are, the more chance there is that the advice they are getting from civil servants will be carefully scrutinised. They will pay more attention to the matters that come before them, and there is more chance that the views of the Minister's own party will get through.
  On the other hand, if there are few Ministers, there being a limit to what human nature can achieve, the civil
  824
  servants will in the end implement their own policies. We are faced with the choice between reducing the power of back benchers by increasing the number of Ministers and giving civil servants possibly more power by having only a small number of Ministers.
  Society itself is much more complex these days. Governments find themselves forced into further and further intervention. In any case, we would need more Ministers to deal with the complexities of problems with which the Government are faced, quite apart from the question of intervention in a specific matter. We have recognised these facts by increasing the number of Ministers. On balance, therefore, it seems to me that the Bill is necessary.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Does the hon. and learned Member think that the device adopted in the French Assembly whereby every person on becoming elected to that Assembly nominates a deputy who takes office as a member of the Assembly when the member himself is appointed a Minister might not serve the purpose the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind? Under that system we could arrange for as many Ministers as we liked while retaining a full complement of independent members in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Lyons: I regard that idea with interest, but it does not commend itself to me. The other suggestion tonight—that Members should be given more resources—is much more sensible. The fact is that MPs do not regard themselves as sufficiently individually significant. If each MP regarded himself as being far more important than he, the Ministers and ordinary electors at present think, he would begin to get a full staff, he would refuse to be pushed about and there would still be individual Members of Parliament to stand up against the executive when necessary. When we have no facilities and inadequate services we begin to see ourselves as unimportant, almost as lapdogs of the executive, and we do not dream of asserting what should be the true importance of the Member of Parliament. By not asserting that importance, we are letting down democracy and our constituents because we are the representatives of the people in the first place. We should represent them with panache, courage and pride.

  825
  The system is so arranged as to prevent us from doing that by putting some of us 30 to an office, by keeping us apart from our secretaries and by not providing us with sufficient resources to have adequate secretarial assistance—all matters which successive executives have connived at in order to maintain back benchers in a position of relative impotence. When our colleagues who become Ministers eventually decide to operate on behalf of those of us who are not Ministers, they will also be operating on behalf of the people of this country and then we shall have a much stronger check on the executive and we shall not have to worry about five or six Ministers, more or less.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: This has been a useful discussion about the power of the executive and its relationship with the legislature. I am in favour of the clause, which extends the number on the executive, but may I expand a little on the point I made in the interjection?
  If this legislature is to have the proper and adequate control, we should have everybody in this Chamber who has any executive powers answerable to us. It is an antique anomaly that we allocate a huge amount of power—following Montesquieu—to a man appointed by the Government as head of the judiciary who is a political appointee and is therefore not impartial. He is a member of the Cabinet and of the executive, but he is never in this Chamber to answer our Questions. We cannot put Parliamentary Questions down to him. I am referring, of course, to the Lord Chancellor. As long as the head of one of the most important powers in this country, albeit in theory an independent power, is separate from the executive, but still consulted by it, this legislature is robbed of an opportunity to subject that part of the executive to proper and adequate scrutiny as we are elected, after all, to do.
  In my view the position of the executive is most unsatisfactory. Parliament is slow to change. Those of us who are fresh into Parliament may seem brash to those who have been here for many years and who feel that we should perhaps conform much more readily to the old customs which are time-hallowed, but there are many things that to us seem strangely absurd and quaint and could well be dispensed with.
  826
  The notion of lifting out 120 people from the majority, or in our case the minority, party, and giving them powers to make executive decisions completely remote from back benchers, and delegating to them enormous powers of legislation, is wrong. I do not have to emphasise the powers given to the Secretary of State for Employment under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill. He has power to modify or repeal Acts of Parliament. He can sweep them to one side. He can do this with a very nominal procedural negative resolution which creeps through Parliament.
  The Order Papers produced each day are not couched in language which enables every hon. Member to understand them at a glance. They are couched in language which is antique, old-fashioned, and which should have been replaced 100 years ago. The ordinary Member of Parliament, who is put into this Chamber without any training or occupational guidance, has to go through a mass of antique wording to obtain information, to act as a check on the executive which has been handed powers of enormous magnitude because of the very complications of government, which are increasing day by day.
  I support the extension under this clause. I suggest it might be prudent, while having an additional number of Ministers, to look at the way in which they operate. Local government operates in a far more sensible and democratic way. If one is elected to serve in local government, one is not shoved on to the back benches with a subject committee to keep one occupied so that one does not become bored between votes. One is given the opportunity of serving on decision-making committees where one can argue and participate in the decision making
  The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) has made the point that the executive is surrounded by a continuing Civil Service. The Civil Service does not change from election to election, as we change. Civil Servants are far closer to Ministers than are many Members of the legislature who belong to the executive's political party. It is possible for civil servants—with their knowledge, expertise and ability—to influence Ministers to their way of thinking and against the decisions and

  827
  attitudes that the executive would normally wish to adopt.
  Therefore, the existing pattern in local government of having committees which, when their decisions are made, are still answerable to the full assembly of the council—in this case it would be Parliament, where a Minister and back benchers would be involved in arguing about decisions—has much to commend it.
  Within this parliamentary system we must have a serious look at the way in which Parliament can work because, although there is much greater Government intervention, we cannot continually add Ministers to a point where virtually everybody in the majority party will be on the payroll. Parliament will have to take a look at itself.
  10.30 p.m.
  Hon. Members may say, "He is a brash newcomer saying this." But a newcomer has not been influenced by the time-hallowed traditions. The statutes, the portraits, mean very little to me. I come fresh-eyed from a provincial constituency. I marvel that Parliament has not changed already to meet the continuing and increasing demands made on the Government. The back bencher has a greater part to play than simply exercising jurisdiction in the Chamber and taking part in the odd Select Committee and Standing Committee.
  I recommend some investigation of a committee system under which a committee could delegate powers to a Minister, with some element of secrecy. There are large areas of decision making that a committee could usefully debate. When a Member wanted to raise issues, he could do so in the committee. Local councillors do this as a matter of course on committees of which they are members, and they can participate in the decision making. Here, we feed matter into a machine, much of which is controlled by the Civil Service, and hopefully extract the answer.
  I support the clause, but I hope that the Government are aware of the grave shortcomings of the system and know that length of service does not mean complacency and an acceptance of the status quo here. Change must come. People outside look at our proceedings with amazement, as I do. In what I hope will be a long stay here, I hope that
  828
  my way of looking at Parliament will never wear off and that I shall never absorb the antiquities which are so superfluous and absurd.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

PAKISTAN BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
Mr. David Lane: On a point of order. It would help the House to have a brief explanation of the background to the Bill, to which one or two of us might want to respond.
10.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I had thought that the House had worked hard today and did not need to deal at length with this measure.
The Bill is in effect a continuation of the Pakistan Act 1973, brought forward by the previous Government to cover the interim stage while Pakistanis who, by that Act, became aliens were allowed to exercise their civic right to vote while they were in the process of being registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The final date for applications under the Act was 31st August this year. It was expected that by that time most of the applications would have been processed and that the provisions of the Act would allow people who had applied and were on the register of parliamentary electors to vote while that register was current and to be included in the register which came into force in February. It was thought that that was adequate to

829
deal with the problem of allowing them their civic rights in this interim period. Unfortunately, as with all the best laid plans of mice and men, things gang aft a-gley.
A considerable number of people have applied for citizenship-80,000 to date—and we expect that before the final date the figure will be about 90,000. These applications take a considerable amount of time and effort in investigation, and although we have increased the staff dealing with these applications the backlog is considerable. To date we have dealt with about 28,000 applications, about 18,000 are being processed, and the rest have still to be done.
In those circumstances, it is not expected that we shall be able to finish this task much before the end of next year. It is, therefore, necessary to extend the period in which these people are allowed to be registered as voters in this country. For that purpose, we have introduced the Bill which adds a paragraph to the original Section 3(5) to extend the period for which they are eligible to be registered for as long as is necessary—we shall not make the mistake of having to bring in a new Bill next year if we do not finish—up to the time which the Secretary of State may specify in an order that will be laid before the House. We shall not have to trouble the House any further with a Bill at 11 o'clock to deal with this problem. We hope that we shall not have to extend the period beyond the end of 1975. That means, in effect, that we should have to carry on until the register came into effect in February 1976.
I am anxious that we should get through the applications as quickly as possible, and I have considered whether we should take on more staff to deal with them. Although the initial processing of the applications can be done by clerical officers, the actual work of judgment of the applications has to be done by executive officers and above, and the training of an executive officer is about a 10-month job.
It is difficulty to justify taking on many more staff unless they will be used in the other areas of the Department. Quite frankly, though, I think that there is a case for doing that, since we are heavily overworked in Lunar House in Croydon in the immigration department. The
830
amount of paper that goes through there is a wonder to behold. I should very much like to increase the number of staff, but this means a call on public resources and one has to justify it.
I hope that those hon. Members—this is not central to the Bill—who have an interest in immigration cases and write to the Home Office about them—either to me or to the Department—and find that it takes a great deal of time to get a reply will continue to complain bitterly about the delay so that I can send all their letters to my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to show how much more staff we need to deal with this problem.
A matter which struck me forcefully after I had been in the Department for only a few days was that we must face the task of having a humane immigration service which deals quickly, effectively and humanely with the applications that come before it, and that cannot be done if people have to be asked to deal with applications at the rate at which the staff at Croydon have to deal with them. There is a case for increasing the number of people we have working on nationality applications in order that subsequently they can be used on immigration cases. I am looking into that point.
There is little more that I can say about the Bill at the moment but, with the leave of the House I shall later answer any questions which may arise.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. David Lane: The House will be grateful to the Minister of State for explaining the reason for and purpose of the Bill. We are happy to support it, and we appreciate the feeling way in which the Minister spoke of his wider immigration responsibilities. We also pay tribute to the work of the staff on immigration and nationality matters. Whether involved as ordinary Members or as Ministers, we realise what an exceptionally difficult and sometimes burdensome job it is, and we are glad to have an occasion such as this to pay tribute to the staff.
It was always intended that Pakistanis settled here should continue to play their fullest part in the civic life of this country, including voting at local and parliamentary elections. In the Pakistan Act 1973, to which the Minister referred, we took a great deal of trouble—it was

831
perhaps the provision which caused the most head-scratching—to avoid any unintended disfranchisement of Pakistanis. Section 3(5) of the Act assumed that all initial applications would be dealt with before October 1974, when the new electoral register was to be compiled.
The Minister has explained that the numbers applying to be registered as United Kingdom citizens have turned out to be rather higher than were originally forecast. It is clearly right that any of them still in the queue next October, when the work of putting together the new electoral register starts, should not be penalised, through no fault of their own, simply because it is impossible to get the administrative job finished in time. So it is proper for the House to extend the transitional arrangement in the way the Minister proposed.
I was interested in what the Minister said about the closing date for the arrangements. He said he hoped that the whole job might be finished by the end of next year, although not much before the end of next year. We appreciate the difficulties of the work involved, but I hope that it will be possible, as the staff get more and more into the momentum of it, to finish the job before October 1975 so that the transitional arrangement can be wound up before the subsequent electoral register comes to be compiled.
However, we must wait and see, and in the meantime we accept the sense of leaving an element of flexibility. I make my plea about finishing the job before October 1975 because I believe that transitional arrangements make less sense the longer they remain in force.
We express our goodwill to the Pakistani community in this country, particularly those registering as United Kingdom citizens. I hope that I do not show any partisanship if I wish the Pakistani cricketers an enjoyable tour.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: I support the final remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane). I hope to have an opportunity of seeing the Pakistani Test team when it does battle against England in Leeds fairly soon. The Bill is a just measure and, as far as I am aware, the Government have produced it without any back-bench pressure.
832
The Chairman of the Post-graduate School of Studies in Social Sciences at Bradford University has directed a study of Asian voting in Bradford. The study was concerned with voting patterns and the extent to which Asians used the vote. It is interesting to note, for example, that in certain polling stations in Bradford there was an enormous increase between 1966 and 1974 in the percentage of Asians who used the vote.
In one polling station in 1966, 35·8 per cent. of the Asians voted. In 1970 the figure was 67·2 per cent. and in 1974 it had risen to 75·3 per cent. Examining the figures for the seven polling stations we find that the lowest percentage turnout among Asians was 70·5 per cent. The figures for the European voters in the same polling districts are interesting. In 1974 the Asian turn-out was, in all cases, higher than the European turn-out, in percentage terms. The European figures for 1974 were 37·6 per cent. and 71·6 per cent.
In areas where there are many Asians it can be seen that they vote in greater strength than indigenous voters. That shows that they treasure the vote and is an indication of how much they will welcome this measure.
All hon. Members concerned with immigrant areas will have received letters complaining about the delay by the Home Office in processing applications for registration as United Kingdom citizens. It is perhaps necessary to say that this Bill has nothing to do with immigration. Whenever we discuss anything to do with immigrant communities there is some suggestion that we are talking about immigration. This Bill has to do with status, not immigration.
I have found that there have been complaints to the effect that the delay in processing applications for registration is likely to extend beyond the 12-month period of grace allowed by the Pakistan Act 1973. By that Act Pakistanis are aliens by September 1974, and the law recognises them as such. There is a reluctance by Pakistanis to go abroad for holidays or for any other reason on a Pakistani passport if they know that they will return after the expiry of the 12-month period of grace.
I believe that their fears are groundless. I believe that it they are resident here

833
and go to Pakistan and return here in November they will be allowed in on a Pakistani passport, even though Pakistanis are aliens. It is not possible to convince them of this. They believe that, if they go to Pakistan and return on a Pakistani passport—although they may have lived here for 10 or 12 years—they will have difficulty in re-entering.
Therefore they are pressing hard for the processing of their applications for United Kingdom registration. They want a United Kingdom passport to show at the port of re-entry. I know that the Home Office is overborne with applications and does not have enough staff to deal with all of them. But perhaps it could be flexible in terms of priorities.
If a Pakistani says that he applied several months ago for registration and that he wishes to go to Pakistan in July for his daughter's wedding and that he will be staying there until December, perhaps the Home Office could give that sort of applicant priority so that he could have the United Kingdom passport to show when he returns.
Whereas I appreciate the difficulty my hon. Friend has, in that it takes 10 months to train an official and not enough officials are available, and that it is difficult to accelerate the processes, it should be possible to ensure that where a special case is made out, that person can be given priority. That would very much please the members of the Pakistani community.
I shall not take up what the Minister said about Pakistanis, Indians and Bengalis, where shortage of staff produces delays. However, I congratulate the Minister on the technique he has evolved in passing over a good number of these applications to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. In the previous Government that did not occur with the Home Office They took all things connected with immigrants to their bosom, and their bosom was, of course, heavily overburdened.
In this administration, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs is almost in the same position as the Home Office. He is writing to me the same anguished letters which for years I have been receiving from the Home Office. Clearly, a special technique has been evolved in the Home Office where it is heavily borne in on the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that the situa-
834
tion needs looking at abroad very closely indeed. If the Foreign Office was not aware of this under the previous administration, it has certainly been aware of it since the present Minister took over at the Home Office. I do not blame him, because I know how heavily he is stretched with his work in his Department.
Now that he is joined by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, with at least two Ministers conscious of the situation, it is to be hoped there will be some additional pressure for progress in dealing with this matter.
10.52 p.m.
Mr. Robert Redmond: I apologise for raising this matter at this time of night in another Pakistan Bill, but this debate reminds me of the debates in Standing Committee on the 1973 Bill when the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), the Minister, and I joined to defeat the Conservative Government on that Bill.
I particularly remember in that Standing Committee suggesting that a measure such as this might be necessary because we did not allow enough time in the original Act for all applications to go through. It is pleasant to say, "I told you so", but it is not controversial.
I know what happens when one writes to the Minister about the processing of these applications. I wrote a long letter some time ago. It is probably awaiting a reply, but he has replied to part of the letter already tonight and tomorrow's HANSARD will be useful for me to send to the members of the Pakistan Society. The point made to me by the Bolton Branch of the Pakistan Society is that they are bothered about the time taken.
The other point I should like to put is about the case of a person who came from Pakistan with a British passport perhaps a decade ago and has since lost the passport which brought him in. He feels that he has a problem in his application. He can produce a record of contributions to the National Insurance on a card which proves that he has been working in this country for 10 years, and a certificate from his employer that he has been in employment for that period, and he should therefore be more or less all right. Incidentally, I am reporting now what has been put to me by the Pakistan Society.

835
He goes before the immigration authorities with his record of contributions for National Insurance and with a certificate from his employer, and he is put through what has been described to me as "a third degree" at Manchester Airport. Having gone through that, he finds that a new British passport is produced and stamped with the date of the interview, which then becomes the date of entry into this country.
Pakistan Society members feel that, as a result, they will have to wait some years before entry into this country has matured to the point where they can get British nationality. That is the second matter which I raise in my letter to the Minister.
Obviously I welcome the Bill because, at the time of the 1973 Bill, I warned that it would be necessary.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The speech by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) prompts me to make a brief intervention. I agree with what he said. He expressed it with great feeling. Equally, I have sympathy with the Minister of State and his officials in the difficulty of processing these applications, and I understand the need to extend the time. However, if the time is advanced so far ahead, there is always the danger that officials will say that they have too much on their shoulders and that they will allow applications to pile up.
I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland. We have Pakistanis in the Province, and they are worthy members of the community. They are industrious, and they make a great contribution to Northern Ireland. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, this is a matter of status, and I join the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) in saying that we welcome Pakistanis and trust that they will play a full part in the life of this country.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply briefly to the debate.
I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) said about the staff. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. They come under
836
considerable criticism from time to time, sometimes from the Minister as well as from hon. Members, but they do their job with great expedition and under very difficult circumstances.
The fear expressed by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is unjustified. The Pakistan Unit is a separate unit of the Immigration Department at Croydon. It is housed physically in a different building, and it consists of 125 people who are engaged on this work full time. They do no other kind of work, and they are as anxious as I am to get it finished. There is no question that, because we have extended the time, they will feel that they sit back on their haunches. The work will be done as soon as we can get it done.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) referred to the fears of Pakistanis who go abroad in the period when their applications are being processed. It is an unreal fear, provided that they have settled here with the right to re-entry and that they are not out of the country for more than two years. In those circumstances, they will certainly be allowed back in, even if the period for application has expired. Therefore, I hope that he will be able to reassure those of his constituents, and from the Government Front Bench I certainly reassure any of the Pakistan community, that that will not upset any of their holiday arrangements.
The difficulty arises over getting travel documents to go outside the country and getting passports back. There is some force in the suggestion that these people should be given special priority and be dealt with before they go abroad. I understand that taking people out of the queue and dealing with them would, as a matter of administrative arrangement, extend the time of this whole process. Therefore, the Department normally gives them their passports and resumes consideration of their cases when they return from holiday. Sometimes they are given travel documents. The Department always does its best to help them to have their holidays. Their right to claim citizenship in due course will not be affected.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) asked about getting a new passport. This is one of the most difficult areas of immigration control.

837
We all know only too well that the lost passport is often a matter of great interest to the immigration department. Therefore, I cannot give a categorical assurance that, simply because somebody claims to have lost his passport and can show that he has been in the country for some time, he can get a new passport stamped back to the date when he says that he lost it.
This matter must be dealt with delicately. I hope that the Department will always treat it with as much delicacy as possible and will try to avoid any difficulties which may arise. If there are difficulties in any specific case, I shall be happy to look into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
Committee tomorrow.

FINANCE [MONEY] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
11.2 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to amendments of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1972 relating to sums payable to or in respect of the presidents or chairmen of value added tax tribunals.
This money resolution is a necessary preliminary to a new clause which I am putting down for consideration in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill.
The new clause will provide for minor changes relating to value added tax tribunals. These tribunals were set up under the Finance Act 1972 to provide taxpayers with a simple procedure for contesting decisions on value added tax given by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
I am glad to say that this system has worked very well. However, the number of appeals which taxpayers have submitted to the tribunals has been considerably below that envisaged when they were set up. As a result, some of the full-time chairmen of VAT tribunals have been
838
appreciably under-employed. Their valuable talents could be well utilised in other judicial work, and the effect of the proposed Government new clause is to remove the requirement that there must be full-time chairmen of tribunals.
This new clause must make provision for payment of salaries and pensions to part-time chairmen and this is the major reasons why it requires a money resolution. In fact, the total cost of the tribunals will be reduced by these new provisions. The opportunity is also being taken to clarify the provisions for payments to former presidents and chairmen of VAT tribunals, and the new clause will provide for payment of allowances or gratuities instead of, or in addition to, pensions.
I commend this money resolution to the House. There will, of course, be full opportunity to discuss the new clause in Standing Committee.
Question put and agreed to.

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

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
11.4 p.m.
Miss Betty Boothroyd: This debate is really about the business of putting round pegs into round holes, and the cost to the taxpayer of doing so. The subject of matching the skills of a large proportion of this country's work force to suitable and satisfactory employment is very wide and far ranging and should concern all of us as taxpayers. Matching skills and jobs requires a considerable degree of expertise, which I should have thought the best resources of the Department of Employment, as a non-profit-making body and the Government agency, would not find very difficult to master.
The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to the private agency sector and to the lucrative business which has developed over the years when industry, commerce and Government buy back the skills and talents of people who have been trained originally at the expense of the taxpayer. When all is said and done, it is the taxpayer who provides the necessary resources for schools, polytechnics

839
and colleges of education and, in doing so, provides for the training of students to a level and a degree which enables them then to earn a living.
I should like to make three main points. The first is to show some of the costs involved in this education and training. The second is to show the revenue obtained by the private employment agencies in matching these skills to jobs. The third is to suggest some ways in which the non-profit-making sector—the Department of Employment—might become more competitive as an employment agency.
I want to give the House a few figures. The latest official figures available are for 1972. Those figures show that at a polytechnic it costs £995 per year to educate a student, and at a college of education it costs £612. No one would deny that because of inflation those costs have increased. I have attempted to take the matter a stage further and to work out the cost of training a shorthand typist at a college which is known to me. Based on 10 students per class, for a 36-week course the hourly cost is 53p per student, and this makes a charge on the taxpayer of £667 per student. That is excluding capital costs. The training of a hotel receptionist over a like period is £642, again excluding capital costs. A two-year commercial course works out at 51p per hour and, again excluding capital costs, at £1,284 per student.
Few of us would deny that this sort of investment is worth while. I am sure that it is, though it is at the point of having completed training and when this investment has gone into education that the private agencies seem to step into the picture.
Let us look at the Civil Service, in which 4½ per cent. of the secretaries are engaged on a temporary basis through private agencies. In London alone, 9 per cent. are recruited in that way. Only this week I have been told—it was unsolicited information—that two secretaries working in a London Government office have been employed on a temporary basis for five years.
My limited research does not enable me to work out the cost of training draughtsmen. I am interested here in the subject of training draughtsmen, too. I
840
suggest, though, that the modest sum of £1,000 per annum, on the basis of the figures that I have already given, is about the required amount. In answer to a Question of mine recently, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department said that although the number of agency-recruited draughtsmen has been falling over the years, 22½ per cent. of all draughtsmen employed by the Civil Service are still recruited through private agencies. Here again is a Government Department buying back with public funds the skills and talents originally developed by public money.
I cannot begin to estimate the staff nationally recruited through agencies, but it must be a sizeable number. The latest figures I have seen were for 1971, when 80 per cent. of all staff were employed through private agencies, leaving only 20 per cent. to the public sector. I hope that my hon. Friend can give some up-to-date figures of the percentage of the labour market that is controlled through the Department of Employment.
I do not want to weary the House at this time of night with many figures, but I want to underline the element of profit made by agencies from fees, especially when the public sector buys back the skills and talents of those who have originally been trained at the taxpayer's expense. I question whether this is a good and proper use of public money.
I am not foolish enough to suggest that the whole of agencies' profits is obtained solely from the public sector. But when an agency such as Brook Street Bureau recorded pre-tax profits last year of just under £2 million, and when Alfred Marks last year recorded pre-tax profits of almost £1 million, it must be seen that there is a sizeable proportion of personnel trained at the taxpayer's expense controlled by private agencies.
It is not my intention tonight to discuss the conditions of the medical profession. particularly the nursing profession, but in 1968 1,500 nurses and midwives were recruited through private agencies, and the figure today is more than 4,000—many of those people trained at public cost. I question whether it is a good and proper use of public money for the National Health Service hospitals to buy back the services of people whom they have probably originally trained.

841
How do we reverse this position, so that it is the Department of Employment that has the greater control over the labour force when it comes to matching skills to jobs? First, many employment exchanges no longer have the image of the bare room, smelling of stale smoke, and that atmosphere of "wait-aroundness" which I knew in my younger days. Many have changed to attractive premises, where the job hunter has a considerable degree of self-selection and is dealt with in private as an individual with a need for a job that brings satisfaction, as an individual with a human problem. In my constituency of West Bromwich the "job shop", which I believe is the new term, is most attractive. It is a pleasanter place than it was years ago. Let us go still further in improving the Department's local offices in the form of job shops, so that they attract more job-hunters. More resources need to be made available to do that.
Second, would not it be possible to arrange an agency within the Department related to the employment of those in the medical profession, particularly nurses, midwives and radiographers, so that within the Department there is a special department that looks after the medical profession?
Third, would it not be possible for individual National Health Service hospitals to have their own employment bank for temporary staff? I mean temporary staff in the real meaning of the word "temporary"—staff that could be called upon at the convenience of the National Health Service hospitals and themselves.
Fourth, could not a temporary employment bank be used by the Civil Service, particularly in London and some of the larger cities? Surely the number of personnel required on a temporary basis is large enough for the Department to consider that possibility.
Finally, I do not want to restrict employers from shopping around for staff if they want to do so but, at the same time, I suggest that employers might be encouraged to let the employment exchanges know when they have a vacancy and when they need that vacancy filled. With the continuing improvement of the Department's local facilities more recruits would come direct from schools and from training establishments, and the choice
842
for those wishing to change their jobs would be wider, so that the fee-paying system to private agencies would have difficulty, I hope, in surviving. It would be a fairer deal for the employer, for the job hunter and certainly for the taxpayer, who has for too long bought back the skills and talents developed at his expense.
11.16 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) for giving me a chance to say something about the matters that she has raised. I shall start by talking about employment agencies. I do not have the answers to her questions about various labour markets, but I shall ensure that they are conveyed to her. I shall give attention to what she says regarding medical agency staff and I promise that I shall convey her remarks to the Department of Health and Social Security about the employment of nurses where there are special local arrangements.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the way in which employment agencies have extended their activities in recent years. I am not unaware of the many criticisms that have been made, apart from the ones that my hon. Friend has raised tonight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment keeps these matters under constant review.
These are not the easiest of times for introducing legislation to effect changes in this sphere. On today's performance it will be difficult to do so in any sphere. We have a ready-made instrument for dealing with many of the abuses which it is alleged employment agencies commit—namely, the Employment Agencies Act. Furthermore, proposals for regulations to control the activities of agencies will be circulated this week. I shall be pleased to ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy and I shall look forward to her considered views at some convenient time. It is our hope not only that the regulations, when they are laid before the House, will set the standard of conduct to which it is appropriate that both permanent placement agencies and temporary hire businesses should aspire, but that by introducing stringent regulations we shall be able to damp

843
down the explosion in their numbers which has become apparent in recent years.
Reference is often made to the inflationary impact of temporary hire agencies, and particularly to the pressure for increases in income from permanent staff who are called upon to work alongside temporary staff. I am afraid that one of the reasons for the mushrooming of agencies is the inevitable spin-off of a statutory incomes policy. It affords a loophole for employees who cannot obtain increases in salary and for employers who are not allowed to increase the salaries of their permanent staff.
I have said many times before, but I say it again, that we intend to lay an order ending statutory pay controls by July of this year. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have already set in train a review of nurses' pay. That has been the subject of the same kind of problems—to which my hon. Friend has referred—as exist with the private secretarial temporary hire arrangements.
Apart from the regulatory powers over agencies—I cannot say much more about agencies because we are about to publish the regulations, and I would welcome my hon. Friend's views on the draft regulations—as my hon. Friend rightly says, we also have a responsibility for our own comprehensive employment service. I want to ensure that our service is not merely, in the words of my hon. Friend during Question Time the other day, "more attractive", but the most attractive.
I am determined that our employment service should be second to none. It must command the co-operation—and I stress the word "co-operation"—of employers and workers. By workers, I mean those temporarily unemployed and those in employment. It must aspire to match available jobs and applicants over a wide range of skill and ability going way beyond those occupations which employment officers have been substantially concerned or associated with in the past. It is and will be an indispensable component in servicing growth and economic success by ensuring that industry's ability to succeed and expand is not hampered by shortages of skilled and available labour. Even with unemployment levels which we
844
do not regard as tolerable, there is frequently a shortage of labour, either of the right skill and experience or in the right place.
The employment service is an essential instrument of manpower policy. We intend that it should be far more than a placing agency but should be able to provide the key to opportunities previously denied to or not sought by men and women alike. We set ourselves the task of achieving and of claiming, in the interests of employers and workers, a far larger share of vacancies that arise.
By separating unemployment benefit work—which will remain with the Department—from the employment service, we shall try to remove from the service the "dole image". We want to get away from the old exchanges' association with the despair and poverty of the prewar legions of unemployed who, of necessity, looked to the exchanges hopefully for work and, in its absence, resigned themselves to collecting the basic means of survival. I hope, therefore, that it will be helpful if I describe the ways in which we are achieving and intend to go on achieving the aims that I have described.
The intention to modernise the employment service was first set out in a consultative document issued in the last days of the last Labour Government as the culmination of a long period of research study and consultation, both within the Department of Employment and elsewhere. Our successors set out in their plans, which followed the consultative document, the aim, which I thoroughly endorse,
"to help people choose, train for and get the right jobs; and employers to get the right people as soon as possible."
In November 1972, the Conservative Government announced their decision to set up a Manpower Services Commission outside the Civil Service, to be responsible for the work of the Employment Services Agency and the Training Services Agency. These self-managing agencies were themselves recently established to take over the employment and training services of the Department of Employment. The necessary legislation was enacted in the Employment and Training Act 1973.

845
The Manpower Services Commission, under an independent chairman and with membership appointed after consultation with the CBI, the TUC and other bodies representing local government and education, will be responsible for the development of manpower policies and the work of the State employment and training services. It will bring flexibility into operation and management, but, more importantly, it will directly associate the employers and work people who use the services with the determination of policy.
Under the leadership of the Chief Executive, Mr. Ken Cooper, the Employment Services Agency is pressing ahead with the modernisation plan. A completely new management structure is being established in 18 employment service areas throughout the country, each under the management of a senior office. Direct chains of command are being set up, operating through district managers to the jobcentres and employment offices in the front line. New systems of performance measurement are being introduced, and everyone in the organisation is accountable for the resources he uses and for the job he does. All the emphasis is on decentralisation, so that initiative and enterprise can flourish to the benefit of people using the service.
Good progress is being made with the programme to set up new style jobcentres to replace the old employment exchanges, some of which were, admittedly, on the dreary side, but hon. Members will appreciate that formidable difficulties must be overcome. In the year ending 31st March 1974, 36 new jobcentres were opened; it is hoped to open about 100 in 1974–75 and to replace the existing employment exchange network completely by the end of the decade. The new jobcentres are well sited and attractively furnished in a contemporary open-plan layout. A three-tier service will be offered to job seekers. First is the "self-service" job information and details of vacancies; secondly, advice in depth by specially trained employment advisers; and, thirdly, specialist counselling through the Occupational Guidance Service. The particular needs of disabled persons and the socially disadvantaged are under examination and we are looking closely at the rôle of our industrial rehabilitation units and at the facilities they provide. We have upgraded a high proportion of employment
846
work from clerical to executive level, and the new style training of employment advisers is well advanced.
In the short time that I have been a Minister I have visited a number of job-centres. I am extremely impressed by this form of public enterprise and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about the centre in her constituency. They do a credit to public enterprise. We are greatly encouraged by the initial success of jobcentres which have been opened so far. During the first four months of this year registrations in them increased by 31 per cent., vacancies notified by 42 per cent., and placings by 57 per cent. We are going out—if I may use a commercial term in this context—for a big share of the market.
The Occupational Guidance Service has now developed to a stage where nation-wide coverage is provided through a network of 45 units in the main centres of population. It is staffed by 170 carefully selected officers with experience of employment work who have been given intensive training in guidance techniques, together with instruction in the study of occupations, under the supervision of the Department's occupational psychologists. These trained occupational guidance officers are supported by a referral service to consultant psychologists where they feel the need for a second opinion. This continuing contact with professional consultants and the allocation of time for regular and systematic job studies provides for a continuing development of their individual competence.
At the present the service is dealing with more than 46,000 cases each year. Among these are people who have yet to enter employment or who have made a false start to their career; people returning to the employment field after a break; and those who, whether of necessity or their own volition, wish to consider a change in their type of work or career.
The restyled Professional and Executive Recruitment Service was launched 15 months ago and has already made a considerable impact on the recruitment market dealing with higher level appointments. This unique nation-wide computer-assisted selection service has gained a reputation for speed of operation and the quality of candidates it produces. Considerable importance is attached to

847
these two key features, which are regarded as essential to encourage repeated and increasing use of the PER service by employers. Each employer's need is handled individually by a trained recruitment consultant, who is able to advise a client, on the basis of his knowledge of the supply and demand position, how the assignment should be handled to provide the best result. In addition to identifying the best available candidates from the PER service's records, arrangements are being made to an increasing extent for the appointment to be advertised simultaneously in the national, provincial or specialist Press in order to provide the employer with a wider choice from which to make his final selection.
Arising out of the Employment and Training Act 1973, the Employment Services Agency has assumed responsibility for providing an effective employment service for young people—16 and 17 year olds—who choose to seek its help. The service seeks to co-operate with the careers service of the local education authorities to ensure that young people have the opportunity of using the service most suited to their needs.
I turn to the new and advanced working methods now being employed. We are introducing new methods and equipment into our offices. In London there is a computer-based job bank, whereby offices in the Greater London area report outstanding vacancies to the computer which provides a vacancy list print-out by the following morning. In London, too, plans are going ahead on the CAPITAL project for on-line computer-aided matching of vacancies and job seekers. In major conurbations other than London facsimile reproduction equipment has been installed which allows instantaneous circulation of vacancy details of registrant particulars throughout the network of local offices. In each region employment information centres have been established to exchange job information and to facilitate the placing of the mobile registrant. The improved employment transfer scheme provides financial assistance for workers moving to employment in another part of the country and our information service covers employment, housing, education and amenities generally in the area of the prospective job.
848
Our new technique of providing vacancy information by "self-service" has been most successful and has appealed particularly to women. "Self-service" for those needing information only allows more time for expert help by the employment adviser for those who need it.
A comprehensive professional marketing programme has been prepared to improve the standing of the service and to increase our labour market penetration. It is our aim to provide services which are more responsive to the needs of employers and work people where they want them and in the way they want them. For example, the specialist service in the hotel and catering industry has been enlarged and improved and special efforts have been made to meet the labour requirements of North Sea oil employers.
A series of experiments to test the possibility of developing local labour market intelligence has recently been evaluated and it has been decided to extend the scheme gradually to all areas where the local labour market is active enough to warrant it. The system is designed to improve the collection and interpretation of labour market statistics and information so as to give a clearer indication of future manpower needs locally.
The current research programme covers projects to assess the use made of our service by employers and workers and what they feel about it, and also the areas where a more effective contribution is needed. There are plans for longer-term research into the characteristics of major labour markets.
I understand that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned that more should be done to encourage employers to notify vacancies to our office. We take this point. Compulsory notification of vacancies has been considered from time to time, but experience here and in other countries shows that it is more likely to result in bureaucratic procedures and abortive paper work than an improved service. We are confident that the more effective service we shall be offering employers will persuade them in their own interests to let us know about their vacancies. We appreciate that they may wish to advertise in the newspaper but nothing is lost if they notify us at the same time. In the launching of job-centres our marketing campaign is aimed

849
particularly at local employers and an increase in the number of vacancy notifications is a prominent feature of our annual national targets.
It is difficult in a short speech to cover adequately all the various aspects of the work of the employment service, and the intense activities now under way. I hope, however, that what I have said will give some idea of the progress we are making towards achieving our aim and of the priority which we in the Department
850
attach to the public employment service of which we can already be proud and of which in the future, with the plans that I have outlined, we shall be even prouder. It will be not just a competitor but a leader of agencies of this kind.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Power Sharing
  Power Sharing
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farmers (Bankruptcies)
  Farmers (Bankruptcies)
  Battery Cages
  Battery Cages
  Livestock Welfare
  Livestock Welfare
  Cheese Subsidy
  Cheese Subsidy
  Cattle Slaughterings
  Cattle Slaughterings
  Lime and Fertiliser Subsidies
  Lime and Fertiliser Subsidies
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dividend Restraint
  Dividend Restraint
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Road Tax
  Road Tax
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Overseas Emoluments
  Overseas Emoluments
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  Beer
  Beer
  Women's Institutes (Value Added Tax)
  Women's Institutes (Value Added Tax)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Indecent Displays
  Indecent Displays
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Safety of Sports Grounds Bill
  Safety of Sports Grounds Bill
  Immigration Control
  Immigration Control
  Foreign Secret Police
  Foreign Secret Police
  Prisons (Record-Players)
  Prisons (Record-Players)
  Electoral Reform
  Electoral Reform
  Urban Deprivation
  Urban Deprivation
  Cinema and Television (Crime)
  Cinema and Television (Crime)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Alimony
  Alimony
  Fire Precautions (Hotels and Boarding Houses)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels and Boarding Houses)
  Deer
  Deer
  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Foreign Husbands and Fiancés
  Foreign Husbands and Fiancés
  Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law
  Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law
  Police (Complaints Procedure)
  Police (Complaints Procedure)
  Portsmouth Polytechnic
  Portsmouth Polytechnic
  Police (Special Branch)
  Police (Special Branch)
  Community Relations and Urban Aid
  Community Relations and Urban Aid
  Football Grounds (Crowd Control)
  Football Grounds (Crowd Control)
  Children (Penal Establishments)
  Children (Penal Establishments)
  Magistrates' Courts (Defendants' Costs)
  Magistrates' Courts (Defendants' Costs)
  Aerosols (Vinyl Chloride Monomer)
  Aerosols (Vinyl Chloride Monomer)
  Street Offences and Vagrancy (Report)
  Street Offences and Vagrancy (Report)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Commonwealth Citizens and Foreign Nationals
  Commonwealth Citizens and Foreign Nationals
  Paramilitary Organisations
  Paramilitary Organisations
  Ballot Papers (Security)
  Ballot Papers (Security)
  Debtors (Arrests)
  Debtors (Arrests)
  Charities
  Charities
  Rape (Trials)
  Rape (Trials)
  RACE RELATIONS
  RACE RELATIONS
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT)
  DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT)
SCOTLAND
  Ferguslie Park, Paisley
  Ferguslie Park, Paisley
  Schools (Western Isles)
  Schools (Western Isles)
  Student Halls of Residence
  Student Halls of Residence
  Home Loss Payments
  Home Loss Payments
  Ninewells Hospital
  Ninewells Hospital
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES)
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES)
  MINISTERIAL SPEECHES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  MINISTERIAL SPEECHES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  CHILE (ARMS SUPPLIES)
  CHILE (ARMS SUPPLIES)
  PICKETING
  PICKETING
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  TUC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
  TUC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
  WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
  WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
  ARMS SALES
  ARMS SALES
  SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW
  SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW
  MERIDEN
  MERIDEN
  INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES (SAFETY SUPERVISION)
  INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES (SAFETY SUPERVISION)
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (SECURITY)
  GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (SECURITY)
DEFENCE
  Recruiting (Expenditure)
  Recruiting (Expenditure)
  Ships (Foreign Purchase Orders)
  Ships (Foreign Purchase Orders)
  Imports
  Imports
  Hydrography (Lymington)
  Hydrography (Lymington)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
EMPLOYMENT
  Shipping Industry (Health and Safety)
  Shipping Industry (Health and Safety)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ENERGY
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Oil Exploration Licences
  Oil Exploration Licences
  Off-Peak Electricity
  Off-Peak Electricity
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Acts and White Papers
  Housing Acts and White Papers
  Birmingham (Housing)
  Birmingham (Housing)
  Housing
  Housing
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  Development Land (Prices)
  Development Land (Prices)
  Transport Planning
  Transport Planning
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  London Underground (Accidents Inquiries)
  London Underground (Accidents Inquiries)
  Local Commissioners (Essex)
  Local Commissioners (Essex)
  Bexhill Bypass
  Bexhill Bypass
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  County Boundary Signs
  County Boundary Signs
  Custody Service
  Custody Service
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
FOREIGN AND CONIMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  South Africa
  South Africa
  EEC Associate Status
  EEC Associate Status
INDUSTRY
  Companies
  Companies
  Steel (Sales)
  Steel (Sales)
  Federation of European Industrial Co-operative Research Organisations
  Federation of European Industrial Co-operative Research Organisations
  Government Aid (Motor Cycles and Press)
  Government Aid (Motor Cycles and Press)
  Aircraft Industry (Nationalisation)
  Aircraft Industry (Nationalisation)
  British Steel Corporation Plant (Bristol)
  British Steel Corporation Plant (Bristol)
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Palestinian Refugees
  Palestinian Refugees
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Milk and Orange Juice
  Milk and Orange Juice
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits (Remands in Custody)
  Benefits (Remands in Custody)
  Hospital Building (State Aid)
  Hospital Building (State Aid)
  Hospitals (Medway)
  Hospitals (Medway)
  Hospital Waiting Times (Medway)
  Hospital Waiting Times (Medway)
  Drugs (Prices)
  Drugs (Prices)
  Handicapped Persons (Wiltshire)
  Handicapped Persons (Wiltshire)
  Health Services Building Programme
  Health Services Building Programme
  Dentist-Patient Ratio
  Dentist-Patient Ratio
  Medway Hospital
  Medway Hospital
  Medical Consultants
  Medical Consultants
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Hearing Aids (Applications)
  Hearing Aids (Applications)
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped Persons
  Geriatric Patients
  Geriatric Patients
  Disabled Persons' Aids (Gloucestershire)
  Disabled Persons' Aids (Gloucestershire)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Women's National Insurance Contributions
  Women's National Insurance Contributions
  Cigarette Smoking
  Cigarette Smoking
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Allowance)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Allowance)
  Poison Antidotes
  Poison Antidotes
TRADE
  Conferences and Exhibitions
  Conferences and Exhibitions
  Limited Companies
  Limited Companies
  Hand Tools
  Hand Tools
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Medical Equipment
  Medical Equipment
  Chilean Copper
  Chilean Copper
  Films
  Films
  Electronic Equipment (Aviation)
  Electronic Equipment (Aviation)

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

E.E.C. AND UNITED KINGDOM FOOD SUPPLIES
LORD O'HAGAN: 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 they would ensure that the British people had enough to eat if the United Kingdom left the E.E.C.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the United Kingdom currently produces something over 50 per cent. of its total foodstuffs and about 70 per cent. of those foods which can be produced reasonably economically in this country. It is the Government's policy to encourage the maximum economic production in the United Kingdom, and discussions are at present being held with the interests concerned on the future of the agricultural industry. Nevertheless, we shall continue to be dependent on imports for a significant proportion of our supplies. Some of these are likely to come from other Members of the Community, whether we are Members or not, but considerable quantities of imports must also come from third countries with climates more suited to produce the foodstuffs concerned.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in a Written Answer to me on May 23, he listed as the four most important producers of agricultural products imported into this country the Member States of the Common Market? In order to ensure safe and cheap supplies of agricultural products to the British people would it not be best for us to stay on good relations with these major sources of our food?
LORD STRABOLGI: Certainly, my Lords; we wish to remain on good rela-
1032
tions with all countries. But both the Irish Republic and Denmark, two of the countries the noble Lord had in mind, whether or not they remain in, will I am sure wish to retain the United Kingdom market.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, could we not have as an added insurance the encouragement of fish farming in this country?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; most certainly.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, did not the noble Lord say,"Whether or not we are in "? Is it really necessary to be so doubtful and to cause depression in Europe?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government approach has been developed in some detail this week by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture at the meeting of the Council of Ministers and, indeed, a Statement was repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts yesterday and a copy placed in the Library.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is not the conclusion from the noble Lord's Answer that if we were not in the Common Market we should still be dependent to a considerable degree on foodstuffs from the Common Market, among other sources, but we should be without influence in Brussels to make sure of the conditions in which we got them?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is a question of what can be negotiated.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this question has been answered by Robbie Burns:
" Some hae meat and canna eat, And some wad eat that want it; But we hae meat, and we can eat, And sae the Lord be thankit."?

M.1 AND TREE PLANTING
3.10 p.m.
LORD BRAYE: 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 the planting of young trees

1033
close to the verges of the M.1 motorway could be discontinued, as these trees even before reaching maturity could cause a severe accident should they be blown on to the motorway in high winds; and whether Her Majesty's Government will order that those trees which could reach the surface of the motorway be removed before a serious accident occurs.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, no further planting is proposed on the existing lengths of the M.1. Some of the young trees will be removed to give others space to develop, but in any event no trees are planted within 25 feet of the edge of the nearside lane. All trees are regularly inspected and maintained, and where necessary some are removed to avoid the risk of them becoming a hazard to traffic.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Also, I am very glad to hear that the trees will be looked at and kept in safe order, because at the moment some of them are extremely near the verge of the motorway.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider this suggestion? Owing to the rather serious decline in the variety of wild flowers in this country, will he consider planting on the verges of motorways some of the seeds of those plants which are available in order to ensure the conservation of the species?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I shall be delighted to convey that suggestion to my right honourable friend.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, have the Government considered adopting the system, which is fairly prevalent in parts of the United States, of planting low growing, creeping plants on the verges of motorways? They grow all over the place and never need to be reaped.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the Department has made many experiments. The suggestion which we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is one that probably deserves the most serious consideration. I am not sure that we have too much to learn from America in this matter.

POPULATION CENSUS
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have decided to hold a population census in 1976.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government are considering both the need for up-to-date census statistics and the cost of holding a population census in 1976. They expect to reach a decision before the Summer Recess.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his apparently sympathetic Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the planning authorities—that is, the reformed local authorities—are mainly dependent on the data coming from the censuses for their demographic housing and employment data, and that it is impossible for them to draw up their structural, development, and local plans without up-to-date material? It is just like looking up a train in a timetable ten years old and the result is usually wrong. So would the noble Lord be good enough to take into account these substantial arguments for holding an interim census in 1976, which is still under discussion?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government agree entirely with everything he has said. We are aware that local authorities and Government Departments are dependent upon accurate information from the census of the population because of housing, economic and transport aspects, et cetera—in fact, all the aspects that the noble Lord has mentioned. The Government will not need any persuasion on that side.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that errors of the kind which crept into the 1966 sample census could be avoided if a similar sample census were taken in 1976? Furthermore, may I ask whether he considers that part of the effort should go into ensuring that results from these censuses are available more promptly—and, in particular, that the ten-year statistics from the 1971 Census

1035
should be made available to your Lordships for consideration during the proceedings on the Rent Bill?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord may know that at the present moment certain pilot schemes are in operation, having been undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. These schemes cover something like 100,000 householders in, I believe—and here I am speaking entirely from memory—about five areas of England. The whole purpose is to see whether it is possible to undertake a census of the normal kind in a much simplified way, where the results can be collated much more speedily and where it will be less difficult for the persons involved in the census to complete the forms.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is extremely difficult for any authorities, either in the Department of the Environment or at the local level, to take correct planning decisions in the absence of the up-to-date and accurate raw material that a census provides? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in the absence of this basic material it is only too easy to make very costly mistakes, involving a waste of public expenditure, out of all proportion to the cost of conducting a census?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have conceded that in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and that is why I say the Government expect to make an announcement upon this matter before the Summer Recess.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the improvement in the quality and amplitude of social statistics in this country is the admiration of professional statisticians throughout the world? It is to be hoped that in regard to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, there will be no falling away in that respect.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if we are to have a census, may I ask whether the Government—if they still are the Government at the time—will take into consideration the events of the last census, when great resentment was expressed at the many personal (and, as it subsequently turned out, unneces-
1036
sary) questions which were asked of citizens, male and female? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he will attempt to ensure that the public have full knowledge in advance of what the census paper proposes to ask, in order that public protests or representations may be made in good time?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. The matter which he has raised is at present being looked at and perhaps he will allow me to say that, for the benefit of the country, I hope a majority of the people will have the good sense to ensure that we do still have the same Government when the census is taken.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, if the Minister is telling us that questions will again be asked of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred, may I ask my noble friend whether he will take pains to ensure that the real usefulness of the questions which will be asked is fully explained to the public beforehand? This might obviate a number of the protests that were made last time.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this Government and, it would be fair to say, the previous Government took very accurate note of the many objections raised after the last census. These are matters which are being looked into, and I can assure my noble friend that I shall certainly convey what she has said to my right honourable friend.

HAM HOUSE AND OSTERLEY PARK HOUSE
3.19 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are not abolishing the charges for admission to Ham House and Osterley Park, which accrue to the Victoria and Albert Museum.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, there have been admission charges at Ham House and Osterley Park House ever since they were opened to the public

1037
under the administration of the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1949 and 1953 respectively. The continuation of this policy by successive Governments, including the present one, is based on the recognition that different considerations apply to charging for country houses, such as Ham and Osterley, from those which apply to our great national museums and galleries.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, while recognising the fact that Ham and Osterley are just definable as"in the country ", will the noble Lord say what would be the undesirable consequences which would flow from the abolition of these charges which were referred to by the Under-Secretary of State on May 14? Furthermore, as the cost of the maintenance of the properties is borne by the Victoria and Albert Museum, will the charges accrue to thefunds of the Victoria and Albert Museum, as was done under the enlightened policy of the last Government?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. The receipts from charges go to the Victoria and Albert Museum, who bear the main running costs. Ham House and Osterley Park House are leased to the Government by the National Trust. It would be invidious to remove charges at these houses when the National Trust itself depends on a policy of charging for admission to similar houses in its care.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, is not that rather hair-splitting as regards the difference in Ham, Osterley and Apsley House?
LORD STRABOLGI: No, not at all, my Lords. Different considerations apply to the Wellington Museum at Apsley House. It will be remembered that this magnificent gift to the nation by the seventh Duke is a national museum in the centre of London. There is every reason why it should follow the free entry policy for institutions in that category. It is quite different from the other two.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will the noble Lord also bear in mind that Hampton Court Palace, for which the entry charge is 30p, was once considered a country house?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, just to clear our minds, will the noble Lord tell us what happens at Kellwood, which appears to be on the borders rather than in the town or country?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, it is of course rus in urbe; but there again it is in the possession of the G.L.C.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept my congratulations in keeping a perfectly straight face when giving those answers?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that if he were to abolish the charges for these two country houses, he would be accused of"blacklegging"by the many noble Lords, inside and outside this House, who make charges to visitors at their own country houses?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Second Readings of the Housing Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which we are expecting from the Commons next week, should be taken together. Originally, it had been planned to take these on Tuesday, July 2, but I understand that noble Lords from North of the Border will he otherwise engaged on that day, and my noble friend Lady White has kindly agreed to move her Motion forward so as to allow the Housing Bills to be taken on Wednesday, July 3. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness White to advance her Motion from Wednesday, July 3rd, to Tuesday, July 2nd next and that Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with that day for the purpose of giving precedence to the said Motion over Public Bills and Orders.—(Lord Shepherd).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Commitee's Report was as follows:
1. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee received reports:—

(a) from the Leader of the House in regard to the resignation of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the appointment of a successor by the Queen, and the resignation also of the Clerk Assistant; and

(b) from the Lord Chancellor in regard to certain consequential appointments which he proposed to make to Clerkships at the Table, and for which he would shortly seek the approval of the House.

The Committee took note with approval that all these appointments had been the subject of wide consultation in accordance with the personal undertakings given by a former Lord Chancellor and the then Leader of the House (Third Report dated 17th July, 1973, item 2).
The Committee sanctioned the payment to Mr. R. W. Perceval, Clerk Assistant, on his resignation, of the appropriate pension and lump sum under the 1972 Pension Scheme, together with compensation for premature retirement, and thanked him for his services to the House.
2. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: LEGAL ADVISER
The Committee sanctioned the creation, for one year in the first instance, of a new post of Second Counsel to the Chairman of Committees for the purpose of providing legal advice to the European Communities Committee.
The Committee were informed of the appointment of Sir Charles Sopwith to the post.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
JURIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure Consolidation Bill. It consolidates the outstanding provisions of the Solicitors, Public Notaries, Etc. Act 1949, the Solicitors Act 1957 and various enactments amending that Act, the Solicitors Act 1965, and the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill which is now before Parliament. The Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way and I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on a much needed piece of consolidation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PRICES BILL
3.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This Bill is an essential part of our strategy against the staggering inflationary pressures which this country was facing when this Government came to power and which still confront the British people. In February, retail prices were already over 13 per cent. higher than a year earlier. With many cost increases still to feed through, it was clear that this rate of increase was going to go still higher. In January, food prices had stood at no less than 20 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not making a political point about this. All industrialised countries had high rates of inflation, although, I am bound to say, in most cases not so high as ours. Much—perhaps as much as half—of the rise

1041
in domestic prices in 1973 was due to rapidly growing import prices, which in turn reflected both commodity price increases and the depreciation of sterling that followed the last Government's decision to float the pound in mid-1972.
The Prices Bill is part of our strategy for making a start on the containment of inflation, and that strategy itself has to be seen against the background of our other economic difficulties. One of the most serious is the balance of payments situation. Much of the deficit was of course due to the rise in the price of imported crude oil. We are not trying to eliminate this part of deficit—it will have to be financed, of course. But we must secure a steady improvement in the non-oil deficit. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, no substantial increase in living standards can be expected this year. This makes it the more necessary to help those in greatest need. We could not get away in the Budget without significant increases in taxation. Nor could we get away without increasing nationalised industry prices. The prospective deficit of these industries left us with no alternative. Our predecessors have conceded that they would have had to do the same if they had been returned to Office at the Election in February.
What the measures announced in the Budget did was to ensure that the unavoidable burden of higher prices was borne, so far as possible, by those best able to bear it. The retail price index for May is being published to-morrow and it would be impossible for me to speculate on its contents. In April, the index was over 15 per cent. up on a year earlier.
As to the longer term, there are a few hopeful signs at this time. Commodity prices have flattened out in the past few months, and in the case of certain commodities have begun to turn down. Wholesale prices of home sales of manufactured products increased rather more slowly in May than in many recent months. If the more moderate trend of commodity prices continues, clearly this will be a useful bonus for us in our battle against rising prices. But commodity prices are notoriously volatile and it would be a rash man who tried to predict their movement this year and next. We shall certainly not be relying on them for our salvation. If they do fall back, it will
1042
not obviate the need for a Prices Bill. For we have not finished with rising prices yet.
Some further cost increases, as a result of higher oil prices are still to move through into retail prices. The National Institute, for example, are forecasting increases in retail prices of 17 per cent. during 1974 and nearly 14 per cent. during 1975 in their recent Economic Review, and they do not believe that changes in commodity prices from now on would have too much impact on these estimates before 1976.
I now turn to the contents of the Bill. In the context I have described Clause 1 is not merely the first, but the most important, of the prices provisions of the Bill. In saying this, I do not seek to minimise the significance of the remaining provisions. They have a great deal to offer the consumer. But with food subsidies the Government are acting to break directly into the spiral of price inflation. It is not this Government's policy to rely solely on exhortation or to sit back and accept unquestioningly the price effects of world price movements.
I have said that I accept that the terrifying rate of price inflation which this country experienced last year was to a large extent the result of escalating prices of imported raw materials. In that sense, it was not the fault of the previous Administration. In fact in this, as in other matters, it is not enough to attempt to apportion blame and to identify responsibility. What matters is not who was at fault but what practical action should be taken to meet the unacceptable situation that had arisen. The Manifesto on which the Government were elected made plain our determination to do something practical and to do something swiftly.
My Lords, I recognise that there is a basic disagreement between the principal two Parties in this House over the the philosophy of food subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke on June 12 about"banging the old drum of food subsidies ". He expressed his reservation about a policy in which"large sums of money"are spent—as he alleged—" so widely and indiscriminately ". I would say to the noble Lord that the disagreement between us is largely one of degree. Between the two Parties the disagreement is by no means so absolute as is sometimes asserted. The previous

1043
Administration, after all, had already, before the Election, committed substantial sums to subsidising both milk and butter. I assume, therefore, that noble Lords opposite will not seek to argue that food subsidies have no place in the armoury of selective economic policies. This Administration firmly believe that, in the kind of situation that we inherited earlier this year, there is a role for the selective and discriminating use of food subsidies, in suitable cases.
Clause 1 of the Bill allows for expenditure of up to £700 million on food subsidies. In his Budget Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that expenditure of up to £550 million was envisaged in the present financial year, including expenditure on the pre-existing milk and butter subsidies. Your Lordships will be aware that since the Government came to office the existing milk and butter subsidies have been increased and two new subsidy schemes on bread and cheese have been introduced. The Government have also announced their intention of introducing a subsidy on household flour, And there is finally a proposal, which I am sure your Lordships will welcome, to extend the benefits of subsidised milk to consumers who are outside the scope of the existing arrangements administered through the Milk Marketing Boards. We propose to put right the anomaly—of which I must admit, until I came to prepare this speech, I was totally unaware—by which consumers in certain of the Scottish Islands and the Scilly Isles have hitherto been unable to share in the benefits of the subsidy. The detailed arrangements for these further schemes for these additional subsidies will be announced shortly, and it will then be possible to give some kind of estimate of the additional cost.
Leaving these aside, your Lordships may like to know that in the present financial year payments in respect of the milk subsidy are expected to amount to approximately £260 million. The United Kingdom cost of the butter subsidy will be about £43 million; and an additional £10 million will be paid from E.E.C. funds. The estimated cost of the bread subsidy is £47·5 million and the cost of the cheese subsidy is £30 million. So far, therefore, £380£7·5 million has been firmly committed, and some additional
1044
expenditure will be incurred on flour and milk. In total, these subsidies represent about 4 per cent. off the Food Index and about 1 per cent. off the Retail Price Index.
In selecting foodstuffs for subsidy, and in working out the details of subsidy schemes, the Government have looked first at the foodstuffs which are fundamental in the family budget. Subsidies have been directed to necessities rather than luxuries. It is also necessary to exercise a realistic stewardship of public funds. Products selected for subsidy should have a low elasticity of demand. The Government recognise that there are certain foodstuffs—staple as they may be—which simply do not lend themselves to subsidy in a free economy. I refer in particular to fresh meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. The Government have other policies in hand which will operate to assist the purchaser of these fresh foodstuffs—I shall come to these in a moment. But the unavoidable fluctuations in supply, demand and producer prices would make it impossible for practical purposes to devise a subsidy scheme which ensured that the benefit accrued to the final consumer. It will not, therefore, be feasible to subsidise fresh foodstuffs of this kind.
The subsidies I have mentioned all apply, or will apply, to the foodstuffs mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 1 of the Bill. In subsection (2)(b), the Bill confers on the Secretary of State a power by Order to extend this list. Under subsection (8)(a), such Orders would require the Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. Thus, your Lordships would have full opportunity to debate and pronounce on any proposal to extend the subsidy programme beyond the five basic commodities already specified in the Bill.
I move now to Clause 2, the clause conferring a power on the Secretary of State to regulate the price of food and of certain other goods. My noble friend Lord Jacques had something to say about this power on June 12. when he repeated to your Lordships a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Included in the Statement were these words:
" The Prices Bill, which is currently before the House, includes powers which would enable me to regulate the prices of food and

1045
other items which are of particular significance in the household budgets of those with low incomes. It will be necessary to use these powers in some areas—in particular setting maximum retail selling prices for subsidised foods. Beyond this obvious purpose, however, I have made it clear that I would prefer not to have to make widespread use of these statutory powers, provided that my objectives could be achieved by voluntary means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 12th June, 1974, col. 502.]
Having dealt with the important agreement reached with the Retail Consortium about the concentration of price cuts on particular items, the Statement continued:
" I would like to pay tribute to the retail trade for their co-operation at a particularly difficult time. It does mean the sacrifice of some flexibility in their operations, and they understandably feel this to be commercially disadvantageous. Their response to my initiative is thus a measure of their concern to play a part in the battle against inflation. I have informed the retail trade that, as long as this agreement is working satisfactorily, it will not be my intention to operate the powers of Clause 2 of the Prices Bill, except in relation to subsidised foodstuffs, since the objectives to this clause will have been met by the agreement instead."—[Cols. 503 and 504.]
It follows from this Statement from which I have just repeated extracts that the initial programme of Orders under Clause 2 of this Bill will be confined to the subsidised goods I have already mentioned; namely, bread, butter, cheese and flour. A general Order on milk will not be required, since an Order setting maximum retail prices for milk is already in force under the powers contained in the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Appeals) Act 1964.
My Lords, whatever disagreement there may be as to the merits of a policy of food subsidy, I do not think it will be disputed that, once such a consumer subsidy has been introduced, it is the Government's duty to take the necessary action to ensure that the benefits are reflected in the final prices. So far as subsidised food is concerned, this is precisely the objective of Clause 2(1)(a).
The form of particular price-regulation Orders will depend on the circumstances of each trade. However, I should say that it is intended that each should contain appropriate measures to ensure that any prescribed maximum price operates indeed as a maximum, and that retailers able to sell at lower prices do not automatically adjust their prices to the maximum. Before Orders are made,
1046
consultations will take place under the terms of subsection (6) of the clause with representative organisations, trade associations, enforcement authorities and consumer bodies generally.
The voluntary agreement announced on June 12 is intimately connected with the provisions of the Bill. The items which retailers have agreed to place"on continuous offer"include a number of subsidised foodstuffs. In addition, the basic goods subject to the agreement include a number of the fresh foodstuffs for which, as I have explained, direct subsidy is impracticable. Finally, if the Government determination to act firmly and directly on prices had not been evidenced in the terms of the Bill, I am bound to say I doubt very much whether my right honourable friend would have been more successful than the previous Administration in getting a scheme on these lines off the ground. Accordingly, the powers in Clause 2 are essential to back up the successful operation of the scheme.
May I conclude my remarks on this clause with a word about timing. Your Lordships will observe that the price regulation powers in Clause 2 are limited in duration. They will expire on March 31 next year unless extended by Order under subsection (5) for a period not exceeding a further twelve months. Within these timing parameters, the price regulation of subsidised foodstuffs must, of course, continue for as long as the subsidy schemes themselves. It is envisaged that the voluntary agreement will similarly continue in broadly its present form until March 31, 1975. Clearly, however, there must be an opportunity for earlier review if circumstances so require. My right honourable friend and her Department will remain continuously in touch with the trade on progress and problems.
My Lords, at this point it may be convenient if I move directly to Clauses 4 and 5. These clauses also contain powers to make Orders binding on retailers and relating to the information available to the consumer about prices. I will then return to Clause 3, which touches on a rather different matter in a moment. The powers contained in Clause 4 will. I believe, be generally welcomed. They correct what many of your Lordships may feel to be a long-standing omission in the commercial legislation of this country. It is somewhat surprising to learn that

1047
as the law stands now there is no general requirement for shops to mark the price of the goods that they sell. If competition is to operate effectively, full information is a prerequisite. The trend towards self-service makes price marking more than ever a necessity.
The powers in Clause 4 will make it possible by Order to impose obligations about the marking of specified goods. It will be possible to indicate how the price marking is to take account of V.A.T. It will also be possible where appropriate to require goods to be marked with a unit price. My right honourable friends' Department is already in touch with the main retail trade organisations about the most urgent candidates for price marking and unit price Orders. It is likely that Orders will be made in the first instance on fish, fresh meat, fruit and vegetables. My right honourable friend hopes that the first batch of Orders can be made very promptly after Parliament has conferred the necessary powers. It will, however, obviously be necessary first to discuss the proposals in detail with the trades concerned.
Clause 5 deals with information of a rather different nature. I implied a moment ago that the Government did not intend to make price regulation the pretext for the re-introduction of retail price maintenance by the back door. When price regulation Orders have been made there will remain, quite properly, a range of prices at which products are being sold. This range will demonstrate that there are legitimate variations in distribution and selling costs in different parts of the country and in different types of outlet, and in consequence different prices.
Emphasis on a single price or price maximum can, as I think we would all recognise, be misleading. The Government accordingly believe that in certain circumstances the right thing to publicise is not a single price but the range of prices within which goods are on offer. There are various means by which information of this sort can be made available to consumers. My right honourable friend's Department has recently extended the publicity given to current information about fresh food price movements. There may also be a role for local authorities, in the context of their
1048
general consumer protection advisory services. In addition, however, there may be circumstances in which such information could most usefully be displayed by the retailers concerned.
This is the purpose of the provision in Clause 5, which would permit the Secretary of State by Order to require retailers to display information about the range of prices at which goods are commonly sold.
The powers in the clause will be used, at least initially, in respect of subsidised foods, where maximum prices will be displayed by law and where the range will indicate that consumers need not always expect to pay the maximum price. Since the Government controls the price of milk at all stages, price ranges will not be required for liquid milk. It is expected, however, that a price range Order will be made covering bread, butter and cheese, which will be extended at the appropriate time to include parallel provisions for household flour. The Secretary of State has explained that the powers in the clause will not be used outside the subsidised field without prior discussion with the trade.
My Lords, I come finally to the provisions in the Bill relating to the Agencies established under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. Clause 3 extends the powers of the Price Commission. Briefly, it lays down a procedure for the exceptional case, for which the general rules of the Price Code may not be appropriate. In such cases, the Commission are empowered to bring the case to the attention of the Secretary of State and seek to satisfy him that there are"exceptional circumstances justifying intervention ". If the Secretary of State is so satisfied. then after the requisite consultation required under subsection (2) a direction may be given, the effect of which is to authorise the Commission to exercise their normal powers under the Counter-Inflation Act.
My Lords, all I need say about this provision at this stage is that it is a procedure to be invoked exceptionally for the truly exceptional case. The previous Administration recognised the need for a provision for exceptional situations in the terms of the Counter-Inflation Act. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to that Act there is power for the Minister to give consent in exceptional circumstances

1049
to a price increase which would otherwise be restricted by the Price Commission as inconsistent with the Price Code.
But there is the problem. The existing power does no more than permit the Minister to authorise a price increase in excess of the amount permitted by the Order. No matter how peculiar the circumstances or how anomalous the results, there is no power for the Minister to intervene the other way.
Clause 3 does no more than introduce the necessary two-way stretch. I do not wish to exaggerate the significance of the procedure contained in this clause. It is likely to be invoked rarely, if at all. If invoked, it will be to buttress the general principles of our price control policy and not so as to impair the general status of the Code as authoritative guidance for commerce and industry. The exercise of the power is under Parliament's control, since under subsection (3) any direction would be laid as a Statutory Instrument and subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Such as it is, however, I suggest that this new provision is a reasonable reinforcement of the existing provisions of the Counter-Inflation Act.
Clause 6 confers power for the abolition by Order of the Pay Board. This is not the occasion for a lengthy dissertation on what we on this side of the House consider to be the defects of the previous Administration's counter-inflation policy, and the difficulty of any policy for controlling incomes which does not depend ultimately on consent. But there must be no misunderstanding about this. The Government recognise that any solution to the inflationary pressures confronting us at the moment implies moderation in the level of wage settlements. Your Lordships will have observed that the General Secretary of the T.U.C. has himself recently stated his acceptance of the fact that there cannot, in general, be significant improvements in living standards over the next year. I indicated earlier that such is also the view of the Government. The policy of the social contract is based on a positive response to the measures which the Government have already taken and will continue to take under the powers in this Bill and elsewhere.
1050
All I need say about Clause 6 at this stage is that it empowers the Secretary of State, by Order, to abolish the Pay Board and the machinery of the Counter-Inflation Act as it relates to the Board and to the Pay Code. Such an Order would be required to be laid in draft and would require the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. When this draft Order is laid before your Lordships' House—and it is the Government's intention to lay it immediately on this Bill's receiving the Royal Assent—there will be full opportunity to debate the merits of the policy.
My Lords, this has necessarily been a somewhat hasty canter through the provisions of the Bill, and I have sought to concentrate on the more important points. What I have said will demonstrate why the Government regard this measure as a practical and realistic contribution to our general economic strategy. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a, —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.55 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for explaining this Bill so lucidly. It is a very complicated Bill, but it is perhaps a little less complicated now that he has explained it to us. It is true that in the provisions of this Bill lie the essential differences between those of us on this side of the House and the Government on counter-inflation policy. The Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to abolish the Pay Board, as the noble Lord has told us, and sets out to influence prices by subsidy and control. We are highly critical of both sets of proposals.
There can be no doubt in anybody's mind, I feel sure, that our first priority must be to reduce the rate of inflation which at present is threatening to double prices every four years. The consequences for this country of the present rate of inflation will be very grave indeed, especially for those who are among our most worthy citizens—the self-employed, the professional man, the small trader and the retired. They have no powerful union to stand up for increases in their earnings, and no"threshold"clause to be

1051
triggered by the rise in the retail price index. It is our belief that to tackle this problem effectively requires co-ordinated Government action by every means in their power—fiscal, economic and political. It was in this sense that we sought to act when we were in Government.
We established the Price Commission to act as a watchdog over price increases. It has been effective in many respects, as its periodic reports amply demonstrate. For example, during the first four months of Stage 3, price increases notified to the Commission by firms in Categories I and II were reduced by a total of £600 million. But the other leg of our policy was equally important—the Pay Board. now to be abolished. It is ironic at the present moment to watch the scramble for settlement under the generous—perhaps too generous—terms of Stage 3 in order to benefit from the"threshold"provision. In place of the Pay Board we are to rely for pay restraint on what the noble Lord has called a social"contract ", or what is sometimes called a social"compact ". The word"contract"seems to me to be a little too legal in its implications, and certainly there is nothing legal about this"compact ". In my opinion, it is nothing but a pious hope.
Certainly, no one can accuse the Government of being slow to honour their side of the bargain. Indeed, hardly a day passes without news of some further concession to the unions; and certainly the Economic Committee of the T.U.C. has responded. But no sooner had they issued their advice than individual unions were making it quite clear that they would have nothing to do with a social compact. The Scottish delegates of the National Union of Mineworkers voted unanimously to pursue a claim for rises of up to £20 a week, payable in November, and to use industrial action if necessary. How does this square with the T.U.C. Economic Committee's guide lines? Is this claim just to keep pace with the cost of living? Is this claim designed to help the lower paid? It certainly demands a settlement in a period less than twelve months after the previous one. But the threat to the social compact is not confined to the miners. NALGO, too, have expressed their rejection of it and there are a number of other
1052
unions who are by no means anxious to commit themselves to this compact.
We have no confidence in the Government's wages policy. Nor do we believe that their policy on prices is wise or effective. They began with a Budget which of itself added 1·75 per cent. to the retail price index as a result of increased indirect taxes, and 2 per cent. as a result of increases in the prices of nationalised industries—a total increase of 3·75 per cent. in the retail price index as a result of the Budget. This takes no account of the effect on prices caused by increases in corporation tax and in employers' contributions to the national insurance scheme. No wonder that in the Morning Star of May 25 it was written:
" It was not acts of God. but acts of Mr. Healey in his Budget, which put up all the prices."
The intention now is to spend up to £700 million in food subsidies to mitigate some of that rise in the retail price index. But even given that at a time of grave economic difficulty it is right to devote such a huge sum of public money to the needs of the worst-off members of our society, indiscriminate food subsidies are certainly not the most efficient way to do so. Of the £700 million, more than three-quarters will go to people with an income of over £30 a week and about one-third will go to people with an income of over £50 a week. Some will go to overseas visitors and those who feed in hotels and restaurants. Surely this is a profligate use of public money. Looking at it another way, it has been estimated that the pensioner will benefit from these subsidies by about 33p a week. To increase pensions by 33p a week would cost £35 million, that is about one-tenth of the figure—I think it was £380 million the noble Lord told us—that has already been committed to food subsidies.
If these subsidies are not a bit of short-term window dressing, as some people suspect, what is the Government's longterm strategy? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us. All the experts predict a continuation of inflation, and the noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich, agreed that there were further rises in food prices to come. Will the Government then raise food subsidies to keep pace with these increases at a cost

1053
perhaps of £1,000 million or £1,500 million in the future? Where will their commitment end in a continuing inflationary situation? Or do they expect at least a slowing down in the rate of inflation? And will they then start to reduce food subsidies so that prices will thereby rise again despite an improvement in the economic climate?
My Lords, food subsidies do nothing to cure inflation. They may dull its impact, but at enormous cost, with indiscriminate effect and at the price of distorting the market. This is happening already. Butter is now often cheaper than margarine and there are signs of shortages of sugar, of milk and of cheese. I am told that in Cornwall there are already some shops which are having to ration cheese. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could confirm whether or not that is so. In the case of cheese, the Government are spending more than £2 million on subsidising foreign imported cheeses while many of our own best native cheeses, Stilton for example, receive no subsidy.
My Lords, at least I am glad to be able to welcome the provision for unit pricing in Clause 4. We had introduced a Bill in the last Parliament for unit pricing in order to assist the consumer and it is satisfactory that the present Government have continued this policy. I am much less happy about Clause 5 in its effect on the small shopkeeper. It is all very well for the multiple store to display a notice giving price ranges for various products. In the nature of their business those prices are likely to be at the lower end of the scale. But in the case of the local shops, the price is more likely to he at the higher end and it would be impossible to explain that the small shopkeeper gives a much more local and more personal service to the customer while at the same time, being a small shop, he is not able to compete in price with the multiple store. We should like to see the small trader excluded from the provisions of this clause.
Indeed, we are very worried at the effect of the Government's prices policy on the small trader and on the village shop. I know that the Government have excluded traders with a turnover of less than £250,000 per annum from the requirement to cut their profit margins by 10
1054
per cent., but in fact, my Lords, if the village shop is to compete with the large multiple store he too has to cut his margin, and we are fearful that many small bakers, for example, may be forced out of business. This would be a tragedy for the whole community, especially the old people who enjoy the convenience of the local shop. These are points which we hope to probe into more deeply at the Committee stage.
I have not mentioned Clause 2. As the noble Lord told us, it has mercifully been overtaken by the voluntary agreement and, like him, I hope that it will never have to be activated except in the case of subsidised food. Not that we see much benefit to the consumer from this voluntary agreement which has no effect whatever on the retail price index.
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord's reputation as a Minister will not be judged on the introduction of this Bill. It is a Bill that squanders the taxpayers' money in a most wasteful way; that interferes in the marketplace and lays a heavy burden on the small trader; that heralds the end of the Pay Board and of pay restraint, and that gambles the economic future of this country on an unenforceable contract.
4.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to start by offering humble congratulations to the Government on having recognised what I regret the last Government did not fully recognise, that no prices and incomes policy—whether statutory, voluntary or hybrid—can hope to achieve its object unless prices are tackled first, and tackled vigorously. Of course, all aspects of any anti-inflationary strategy must be linked, and I am bound to say that the long-term value of legislation such as we have before us cannot be assessed until we know more clearly how the Government propose, among other things, to regulate, control, or call it what you will, wages and salaries and other forms of income. So far the Government have not unfolded in sufficient detail that side of their policy and in consequence I find it difficult to discuss intelligently the provision in Clause 6 of the Bill which enables the Secretary of State. at some future date, to lay before Parliament an Order bringing the Pay Board to an end. The noble Lord has told us that they expect to introduce this

1055
Order very shortly and that will be the time to discuss this matter, by which time I hope we shall know more clearly what machinery the Government intend to create—because I cannot believe that they are to have no machinery at all—to regulate these matters. Although the inclusion of Clause 6 in the Bill might justify widening this debate, I, for one, do not propose to do so and I will confine my further remarks to the clauses dealing with prices.
First, my Lords, with regard to Clause 1 and the subsidies, we on these Benches feel strongly that these large indiscriminate subsidies involve a massive misdirection of resources, and I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said in this respect. Many figures have been quoted, but I am always cautious of statistics which are notoriously difficult to interpret. I wonder, however, whether the correct conclusion has been drawn. The noble Lord did not make very much of it to-day, but his right honourable friend in another place certainly argued that the items that have been chosen for subsidy were chosen in order that the benefits should fall mainly upon the low paid and the pensioners. It is no doubt true—I have no means of checking it but I accept it—that these basic items represent a higher proportion of the expenditure on food by lower paid families and pensioners. But that does not mean that these lower paid families and pensioners eat more, mouth for mouth, than their more fortunate neighbours. On the contrary, they eat less.
During the Committee stage in another place, some figures were quoted—which I must say I found quite impossible to understand—suggesting that these people actually eat more of these commodities. I should be very surprised if that were correct. It certainly does not agree with the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I have no doubt that he obtained those figures from a reliable source. We must also remember that the lower paid and the pensioners are a small minority of the population. So is it not clear—and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also made this point—that the greater part of the £700 million, or whatever it may be, goes to people who do not need it?
1056
Incidentally, by directly increasing the purchasing power of the majority of the population, the Government make no contribution whatever to the control of inflation; in fact, what they have done operates in the other direction. Of course, in all parts of the House we want to help the lower paid, but this is difficult to do unless we can identify them. I do not think anyone has yet produced a method for identifying the lower paid, except by something like a means test, and we know this to be unacceptable. We can see that it does not work by looking, for instance, at the poor take-up of the butter coupons. But if the same amount as it is proposed to distribute in the form of food subsidies were distributed directly by increasing family allowances and pensions, the proportion going to the better-off people would be clawed back by taxation. Thus, in effect, the amount available would be increased so that it could be re-cycled—to adopt a popular expression these days—and the lower-paid and the pensioners would get the full benefit.
I suppose it may be said that this would take too long to organise, but if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, tells us in replying that this is just a temporary arrangement, and that if the Government remain in office they propose at the end of that time to adopt some scheme such as I have very roughly outlined, I shall certainly feel much happier. But we have to remember that once we have established subsidies for basic foods, when we try to bring them to an end we immediately have a hump, especially if inflationary pressure is still going on, because the prices have to be increased by that much more when people have become used to receiving a subsidised article. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, touched on this point.
Leaving the question of subsidies for a moment, I come to Clause 2. I think we all agree that subsidised food must be price controlled or regulated as the Bill provides, in this more flexible way. The Minister has told us that as a result of his right honourable friend's voluntary agreement with the trade, reported to your Lordships' House on June 12, it is not intended—provided this agreement is acceptable—to apply Clause 2 to other than subsidised foods. We all hope that the agreement will

1057
succeed but, quite properly, provision has been made for the possible eventuality of the voluntary agreement failing. My own feeling is that the safeguards written into Clause 2, with consultation and, ultimately, an Order laid before your Lordships' House, are adequate. Should the worst occur, if this clause involves—as I think it does—a tightening up of the price control mechanism over some essential foodstuffs and other articles, then I feel that there will be no objection at all. As I have already said, any Order made is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 3 is a different matter. Since under the existing law special circumstances could be held to justify price increases above the level authorised under the Code, it may seem reasonable that it should equally be possible in special circumstances to justify price reductions below the level of the Code. I think that is the argument which the noble Lord put forward. But are these two situations really comparable? May I invite your Lordships to consider the effect of such action in these two situations? In the former situation, the consumer may elect not to buy the item in question—because these are not essential items; otherwise, they would be dealt with under Clause 2. In the second situation where the price is forcibly depressed below the Code level—to use that shorthand expression—the person selling the goods can equally stop selling them, but will presumably have a substantial stock and the loss of that stock which he has acquired in good faith will fall on him and may bring him to disaster. This is particularly so in the case of the small businesses, to whose position the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, drew attention.
There has also been some discussion—this has not been mentioned this afternoon—as to whether this clause is retrospective in its effect. The noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place gave an assurance that it is not retrospective, but I am bound to say I cannot understand it. Clause 3(4), at the top of page 6, states:
"This section does not apply to any increase implemented before the passing of this Act but, subject to that, applies both to a proposed increase and to an increase that has already been implemented ".
1058
I am bound to say I do not understand how it can be said that that does not apply retrospectively.
We can all join in the general congratulations to the Government on Clause 4, dealing with price marking. This is an excellent clause, although there are some difficulties of detail which we may want to look into at Committee stage. On the other hand, I have found Clause 5 very difficult to understand and appreciate. I understand, from statements made during the passage of this Bill through another place that these price ranges—which it is suggested ought to be publicised, and made available to the consumer—are being obtained from the same sources as those on which the Government draw to produce the retail price index. I assume that those sources are all over the country and that an average is struck. But what is the use of putting up a range of prices from, say, 20p to 12p, in a shop in Devonshire, when the 12p price is obtainable only in East Anglia or Scotland? I do not understand how this will work, unless we have some local inquiry available into the range of prices.
Nor do I understand—and this is a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—how one can expect a small shop to put up a notice saying,"The range of prices for this article is from 20p to 12p. My price is 19p ". In a friendly shop, the customer will no doubt ask the shopkeeper,"Where can I get it for less than 19p?" I am quite sure that he will not tell him. Furthermore, it is a little unfair, because we all know that prices are lower in the supermarkets. But the supermarkets are probably a 20p bus fare away, and I do not think many shoppers are sufficiently skilled in accountancy to balance the reduced cost of the supermarket against the cost of going there and back. I would make one suggestion to the noble Lord. Would it not be better if these price ranges are to be posted up and to be, as I hope, regionally relevant, to put them up in post offices, social security offices and perhaps local authority offices, rather than in shops. which could lead to a good deal of unpleasantness and ill-feeling? There are also difficulties about the application of this clause, which we may want to discuss in Committee.

1059
My Lords. I shall not say any more about Clause 6, or indeed about the rest of the Bill. In another place my right honourable and honourable friends, with some help from a few members of the Conservative Party, voted against the Third Reading of this Bill, mainly because of our strong objection to the wasteful use of a large sum of money for indiscriminate subsidies. Naturally, we have no intention in this House of seeking to divide against the Second Reading, but I believe we have a right, and indeed a duty, to call to your Lordships' attention the criticisms which I am sure would have been more cogently expressed if some of my noble friends had spoken instead of myself.
4.22 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I had not put my name down to speak in your Lordships' House this afternoon because I did not know whether I could be here, but I should like to make one comment about the voluntary package, as it is called, with which I have had a certain amount to do.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon said that in an anti-inflationary policy, one must tackle prices first. I should like to say here what I have said since the beginning of the Chequers talks: that it is an illusion to think that you can tackle prices in an anti-inflationary situation at the retail end alone. You must start at the grass roots. It is no good sitting on the safety valve; you must draw the fire. I was happy to see that the present Minister appreciated that point and it is for that reason, in pursuing this voluntary package, that she saw fit to tackle the manufacturing trade also. The voluntary package was entered into in order to avoid the use of compulsory powers. I think that perhaps the Government are heartily relieved that there is a voluntary package, because it is extremely difficult to use the statutory powers. Nevertheless, for good or ill, it was entered into.
I want, however, to give a very real warning that the rise in retail expenses today is such that many retailers are already looking very fearfully over their shoulders at the safety net for net profit which we arranged with the Government. Wages, of course, are rising very fast. To that is added the threshold payments, and whether or not one has contracted
1060
for threshold payments, there is no question that under present conditions one pays them. This has been done almost throughout the retail trade. The addition to the employers' contribution to National Insurance has been a very heavy burden. Rates are up by some 45 to 55 per cent. in many parts of the country. Transport costs have risen most alarmingly, packaging costs, and all the rest.
The effect is that, however enticing it may have seemed to the previous Government or to this Government to take a swipe at the retail trade because in a consumer boom they had made considerable profits, there is very little room left for that type of manoeuvre now. Therefore I give fair warning that although we entered into the voluntary package with good will—as the Minister said, in a spirit of co-operation in an anti-inflationary policy—the House must remember that it was done with the proviso, a proviso admitted by the Minister, that if a retailer's profit fell to the safety net then he was not compelled to cut his gross margin by the full 10 per cent. Therefore, it is fair to say that the impact of it may not be very great. What matters is the effort made by the retail trade, and the effort made by the Government. But the noble Lord, Lord Simon, said that if the voluntary package proved not to succeed there would be room to use the statutory powers. If the voluntary package fails because there is not the profit to provide it, there is no room for the use of the statutory powers unless in fact the retailer is compelled to sell at a loss. I think all of us. if we are fair-minded men, should take that into account.
My Lords, I hope this will work. It took a good deal of achieving. If it does not work, it will not be for lack of effort but simply because costs are rising so fast that it has become an impossibility; and if it is an impossibility then statutory control is an impossibility also.
4.25 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we have had a short but very interesting debate on a Bill which will bring some benefits to every man, woman and child in the country. With very long experience in the retail trade I have very good reason not only to believe but to know that in

1061
the retail shop, where the shopkeeper faces the customer, we have one of the front lines in the fight against inflation, but it is quite unfair to pin the whole responsibility for rising prices on the shopkeeper. It certainly is not the Government's intention to impose an unreasonable burden on this or any other sector of the community. That is demonstrated by the precise changes which have recently been made in the Price Code rules for distribution, which were debated in your Lordships' House on May 16.
After a full consultation it was concluded that retailers generally should reduce their gross margins by 10 per cent. The action the trade is taking to implement the voluntary agreement, about which my noble friend spoke in opening the debate, will not involve any further cut in margins. The power for cutting margins and prices is really in the Price Code. The voluntary agreement merely concentrated those cuts on the necessities of life. As to the Price Code itself, the cut in margins does not apply to enterprises with a turnover of less than £250,000 per annum. It is confined, in other words, to the larger undertakings.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I raise just one point? Of course it sounds very fine to say that only the large undertaking with a turnover of over a quarter of a million pounds will have to make the cuts, but equally shops with a lower turnover would have to make cuts in order to compete with their bigger neighbours.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, they have always had to do that. That is why they have formed their voluntary groups, such as Spar and Wavy Line. That is their response to the national chain supermarkets. The vital service which the small traders—and, if I may add a personal note, the small branches of the co-operative societies—provide in many communities all over the country is fully recognised by the Government.
The Government have already held extensive consultations about the contents of the Bill with the organisations representing distributors and manufacturers. I would particularly direct your Lordships attention to Clause 2(6), Clause 4(3) and
1062
Clause 5(4). All these subsections ensure that further consultations will take place with appropriate bodies representing the trades concerned before Orders are made to regulate prices, require price-marking or prescribe the display of price range notices. There is very full provision in this Bill for consultations. Indeed, consultations have already begun on the Government's initial proposals for unit pricing Orders, and in these consultations special attention is being given to any problems which may arise for the smaller shop. In our view, however, a blanket exemption from the scope of the powers for small shops would not be appropriate or consistent with our duty to the consumer. I would add, as a practising retailer for many years, that in my view it is more help to the consumer to have prescribed quantities rather than unit prices, and I believe that if the trade would get together and have reasonable agreements on prescribed quantities, then unit pricing, certainly on pre-packed goods, would be unnecessary.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has already made it clear that retail traders, while bound, of course, by any price regulation Orders that may be made under the Bill, would remain entitled over their business as a whole to have to have recourse to the safeguards already written into the Price Code to deal with losses or low profit situations. Cross-subsidisation will, however, be necessary in many shops. But this is not inconsistent with the Government's economic and social policies, that the prices of luxury goods should, if necessary, support the policy of restraint on the more basic items. In addition, your Lordships will have observed that it is specifically provided in Clause 2(7) of the Bill that in making price regulation Orders the Secretary of State will have regard to the circumstances of the trades concerned and to the effect of the Orders on the general level of profitability in the trades. There is, therefore, that additional safeguard.
My Lords, the Prices Bill is a major step forward in the Government's fight against inflation. We recognised from the very beginning that it would not be easy to halt or reverse the unprecedented rate of inflation which we inherited. We

1063
were determined, however, to do something positive to give the maximum possible protection from price inflation to those who need it most. It would be foolish to expect dramatic results overnight; yet progress is being made.
To make this point, I need do no more than let the facts speak for themselves. Without food subsidies the consumer would be paying 2p more for every pint of milk, 2p more for every large loaf of bread, 5½ more for every pound of butter and 7p more for every pound of eligible cheese. I think the figures would be appreciated better if I converted them into the old money. It means that 4½d. on a pint of milk, 4½d. on a loaf of bread; in the case of butter is. id., and in the case of cheese just under 1s. 6d. in the pound, is the reduction in the price caused by the subsidies. These savings are on key items in the household budget and are equivalent to more than 5p in the pound, or in old money ls., off the weekly food bill. It is estimated that the saving in the average household would be 60p per week, and in the case of families with four children or more the saving would be 80p per week, upwards; and even in the case of old-age pensioners it is 33p per week for the couple. Clearly the savings arising from food subsidies will mean proportionately more to pensioners and other households on low incomes than to the better off households. While the average weekly food bill of a family with an income of £60 a week is 15½, per cent., the figure for an old-age pensioner couple is 39 per cent.
Food subsidies are criticised, but quite apart from being a quite important element in the Government's strategy for dealing with inflation they have some merit of their own. First of all, there is no means test, and therefore no detailed complex administration for applying a means test. There is no incomplete take-up on the part of those who are poor but too proud to claim. There is no poverty trap. So you have to take the merits of subsidies into account as well as some of the disadvantages.
I am asked whether the subsidies are intended to be temporary. The limit so far as the Bill is concerned is only on the amount; it is not a period of dura-
1064
tion. What happens will depend upon the Budget year by year; and whether or not the Chancellor will find it necessary to continue, to increase or decrease subsidies will depend upon the economic situation and especially the trend of prices.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, if I may intervene, is the noble Lord telling us that the provision that the operation comes to an end at the end of March next year applies only to the amount of the subsidy and not to the existence of the subsidy?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, there is nothing in the Bill which limits food subsidies, except the amount. All the other clauses either have no limit at all or are limited by duration. In the case of food subsidies the limit is the amount of the subsidy.
I was asked about the long term policy. I would say that it is the intention of the Government to continue the food subsidies for as long as it is, in their opinion, necessary to do so. We hope that there will come a time when we do not need subsidies to contain inflation. In that case there will be several choices: to end the subsidies abruptly—and I doubt whether any Government would do that; or to continue them indefinitely—I doubt whether any Government would do that; or to reduce the subsidies slowly and gradually, which would mean that the effect on inflation would be spread over a longer period as a result of the subsidies than it would otherwise have been. That, I think, would be the sensible long term policy in relation to food subsidies.
It is, of course, true that the rich get the benefit of the food subsidies, and it has been stated that they get the benefit whether they need it or not, and without paying for it. I think that food subsidies must be taken in the context of the Government's Budget as a whole. The Government's Budget as a whole was to reduce direct taxation to the lower paid. For example, those who received less than £60 a week paid less direct taxation than before; those who received more than £60 a week in total pay a good deal more tax—several hundred millions more. Consequently, we have the food subsidies, and in so far as the rich are receiving those food subsidies they are making their contribution to the cost by the increase in direct taxation.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, if he wants to take the entire context of the Government's Budget into account, will he also mention the severe increases in indirect taxation which have caused much extra cost to the less well-off by raising the price of tobacco, sweets, drinks, et cetera?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I should have thought that there would be little disagreement as to the desirability of charging a little more for cigarettes, tobacco, and beer, and a little less for bread and butter, and the things that have been subsidised. I would be prepared to rest upon that. Food subsidies, of course, form only a part of the Bill. There are other powers in the Bill to regulate prices, to give additional power to the Price Commission and to require better price information to be made available to the consumer.
So far as Clause 5 is concerned, and the range of prices, the Secretary of State has made it clear that she intends to apply that only for the subsidised foods so long as she has a satisfactory agreement on a voluntary basis with the retail trades. That power to draw attention to the range of prices is necessary unless we are to bring back some form of retail price maintenance. Once you publish only a maximum price, everybody comes up to the maximum price. We want there to be a maximum and a range up to the maximum, and this power taken in Clause 5 is simply a tool for that purpose, and for no other purpose.
Even before the Bill has become law, the Government have been able to fulfil a major part of the objectives of Clause 2 through the voluntary agreement under which margin reductions will be concentrated on a list of basic items of particular significance in the household budget of those with lower incomes. In all these ways the Government are equipping themselves—and the consumer—better than ever before to tackle some of the most damaging aspects of inflation. The Government would have found it exceedingly difficult to have obtained a voluntary agreement had they not shown that they were paying more than lip service in their efforts to prevent inflation, and it was by their food sub-
1066
sidy policy that they were able to show that they were paying more than lip service. I doubt whether the Government would have obtained the voluntary agreement had they not the reserve powers which are in the Bill. It is because they have these reserve powers that they were able to get the satisfactory voluntary agreement with the trade.
It is only by acting directly on prices of essential household goods that we can expect wage earners to respond by moderating wage claims. Trade unionists are fully aware that they gain more from stable prices and moderate wage increases than from higher wage increases chasing higher price increases. Our prices policy is geared to demonstrate that the ordinary wage earners of this country can have confidence in the Government's efforts to control prices. When the wage earner regains this confidence we can expect him to commit himself to the united endeavour. The Prices Bill has a leading part to play in the restoration of this confidence. We believe that if we are to have industrial peace, we will not achieve it by statutory control of wages. In coming to that conclusion, we have taken into account not only our own experience but the experience of the previous Administration, and the experience of almost every western country that has tried it. We believe that there is only one way, and that is conciliation and arbitration. We have to concentrate on that and tolerate some of the difficulties and try and overcome them. The greatest difficulty is to regenerate confidence in the conciliation and arbitration machinery, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
The biggest factor in keeping a high rate of interest in this country is anticipated inflation. The people who have money to lend anticipate inflation and consequently want a higher rate of interest. It is not until we can get greater confidence in the future stability of prices that we shall be able to get lower rates of interest. I hope that the Bill will reach the Statute Book without delay. It is an important element in the Government's policy, and to this end I invite your Lordships, with confidence, to give it a Second Reading. There are a number of matters that have arisen, but I believe that most of them could best be dealt with at the Committee stage.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he enlighten me on something that I regard as an extremely important matter of general policy. Do the Government propose to take powers, in addition to the powers of controlling prices, to institute rationing where demand continues to exceed supply? The policy of indirectly restraining the increase of incomes by acting on prices by subsidies and price-fixing orders was well tried out and had a great measure of success during the war. But experience during the war here and in every country where price fixing has been tried has shown that it breaks down unless it is accompanied by powers to ration where demand continues to exceed supply. Otherwise you get scarcity and queues. and all the social disorder which arise from that.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, in reply I should say that there is no intention to seek powers for rationing. I should imagine that the noble Lord would readily agree that the likelihood for the need for rationing would depend upon the elasticity in demand for the products which are chosen. The products which have been chosen for the subsidy have a very inelastic demand. Consequently, from the information available to us we do not expect any shortages which would give rise to the need for rationing.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, the noble Lord must know that there is already a shortage of cheese.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, arising from that, the noble Lord has not yet answered my question as to whether cheese is, in fact, being rationed in Cornwall.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we have no knowledge of cheese being rationed in Cornwall. You might have a very isolated case of cheese being rationed. I have known of goods being rationed in retail shops because a retailer failed to put his order in in time and had not received his supplies immediately. I have known rationing in shops because of a breakdown in transport. Such factors could have given rise to the temporary rationing of cheese in Cornwall, if that
1068
exists, although we have no knowledge of it.
I should like to make a statement concerning the availability of supplies. In considering which items might be appropriate for subsidy, count has to be taken of the supply situation. The products which have been subsidised so far have a low elasticity of demand. According to the National Food Survey analysis covering the period 1968 to 1973, the fall in demand for each 1 per cent. increase in price is as follows: cheese, 0·11; milk, 0·09; bread, 0·32; and butter, 0·4.
There has been some understandable concern that subsidies on the three dairy items might upset the balance of supply and demand. It is known that milk supplies from farms during the rest of this year are likely to be somewhat less than last year, although at this stage it is not possible to give a precise forecast of the level. It is also true that the subsidy on milk will cause some increase in the consumption of milk in liquid form. However, these factors do not mean that we are heading for an overall shortage or that we are likely to find ourselves with insufficient supplies of dairy products towards the end of the year. For butter we are already dependent upon imports to the extent of 80 per cent. of our supplies. All indications are that any decline in United Kingdom production would be made good by imports from Europe.
Domestic production of cheese, which accounts for well over half of our total requirements, is expected to show an increase this year. Although supplies of New Zealand butter will be below the level of previous years, we are expecting increases in supplies from other Member States of the E.E.C. I think that we should firmly discount the alarmist stories which have been circulated about rationing of dairy products before the end of 1974. There is close consultation between the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the availability of all these supplies.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) (VARIATION) SCHEME 1974
4.53 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1974, laid before the House on June 10, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. When my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell sought the approval of this House on March 28 to the main Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, he mentioned that since the draft of that Scheme was laid before your Lordships on March 13 the Government had reached agreement in the E.E.C. Council of Ministers on measures to be taken to support the United Kingdom beef industry.
Perhaps I should remind the House briefly of the context in which the increase was determined. The agreement of our E.E.C. colleagues had been obtained to our exercising the option of not taking beef into intervention in view of the need to stimulate consumption rather than taking beef off the market at prices which housewives cannot afford. The Government also informed the Commission in Brussels that, subject to the approval of Parliament, there would be an increase of £10 in the calf subsidy rates in Great Britain. Therefore my noble friend told your Lordships that the variation scheme providing for new increased rates in Great Britain would be laid before your Lordships later. It is this variation Scheme for which I ask your Lordships approval to-day.
The increase agreed to of £10 per head in the calf subsidy, for which the draft Scheme makes provision, applies only to calves born in Great Britain. Northern Ireland farmers are at present being paid under separate legislation, a beef marketing subsidy broadly equivalent to the calf subsidy. This special arrangement was made to prevent distortion in trade with the Irish Republic due to the differences in guide prices on each side of the Border. The situation will be changed as from July 1 when the guide price in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic are to be made the same, following agreement reached in the Council in Ministers earlier this week, as announced to your Lord-
1070
ships yesterday by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts. The Northern Ireland headage payments will need to be replaced by an increase in the calf subsidy so that all United Kingdom producers are put on the same footing. A further Calf Subsidy (Variation) Order will therefore be brought before your Lordships as soon as possible.
The draft Scheme falls into two parts, providing respectively for increased rates on live calves—stage A, and on carcases—stage B. Under stage A the increased rates will be £18·50 for male calves and £16·50 for heifer calves. They will be paid on calves born in Great Britain on or after October 30, 1973, until further notice. The increased rates under stage B will be the same as for stage A and will be paid on carcases of animals born in Great Britain and certified on or after December 16, 1974, until further notice. The cost of the increases in calf subsidy rates is estimated at £30 million in a full year.
My Lords, I apologise for speaking at some length but hope your Lordships will agree that the Order is somewhat complicated and that it merits some explanation. My Lords, I beg leave to move.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1974, laid before the House on June 10, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us details of the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1974. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for dealing with it at some length because it is somewhat complicated. I speak with restraint for obvious reasons this afternoon because at present negotiations are in progress between the Common Market authorities. The Meat and Livestock Commission are being informed of all these developments and therefore it is in the wider context that I wish to speak about these subsidies.
In the debate on prices to which we have just been listening dairy products were mentioned but not the beef market. Currently, this especially is in a state of great uncertainty. In fact the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Peart, the Minister of Agriculture, stressed in his negotiations and in his statement in Luxembourg that he considered it to be

1071
the most difficult problem within the Common Market at the moment. But in this country the situation of the industry is one of acute financial embarrassment, giving rise to an extreme shortage of liquidity and very high prices of feed. The feeding of animals during the last six months has been a matter of great concern and, as the noble Lord has already told us this afternoon, the steps being taken are to be regarded as interim measures. We look forward to further measures to support them.
One can say only this, my Lords, that the high slaughter rates to-day are caused by a whole group of circumstances, and those high rates to-day will inevitably mean fewer Sunday joints at a later stage. Future shortages may conceivably mean higher prices; higher prices will inevitably lead to increased subsidies and, in their turn, to higher taxes. It is this extremely difficult pattern of circumstances of which we wish to rid the industry, and indeed the housewife and the consumer in this country. The measures proposed this afternoon are but one small step. From this side of the House we can say only that, if they are interim measures, they are inevitably part of a package which must be supported by a great deal more activity in order to support the industry as a whole.
5.1 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords. may I welcome the explanation of this important and interim Scheme given by the noble Lord the Minister, and also the increase in the amount of subsidies which this Scheme shows over and above the figures introduced by the last Conservative Government after the last Price Review? This subsidy is one which Her Majesty's Government were expected to phase out after a few years, if we were to comply with some of the monstrous and unrealistic terms of the E.E.C.'s Common Agricultural Policy. I join in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture in the other place, Mr. Peart, on the stand that he is beginning to take against these aspects of the E.E.C.'s Agricultural Policy. In particular, may I refer to his speech on June 18 at the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Luxembourg, when he referred to the urgent problems of beef production? He said—and I quote from his speech—
1072
" There is a real urgency about this. We must all recognise that we face the most acute short-term problems in beef production. It could well be that further Community action will be required on an interim basis during the coming weeks. If so, we must be ready to act quickly and effectively ".
My information, my Lords, is that in many rural areas, and particularly on the small farms in parts of Wales, where confidence in relation to beef production is waning, calves are being slaughtered at an ever-increasing rate. This could lead to a shortage of beef in the next year and a subsequent increase in price and, in the long-term, a fall in production can lead only to further higher prices to consumers. There is still considerable scope for expansion in calf production, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give urgent consideration to the requests and appeals which are now being made to him to increase the subsidies in the next measure, which we understand will shortly be forthcoming.
5.4 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords for their support, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his qualified support. The noble Lord said that he would speak with restraint, and I am of course grateful to him for doing so. He mentioned particularly the question of the beef market; and referred to it as being in an uncertain state. I must admit that we are going through a difficult period at present, but I suggest that any alarmist talk can serve only to damage confidence and prospects, and should in my view be avoided. The Government are confident about the industry's continuing future prospects. As I said, action has already been taken to overcome the short-term difficulties. We will safeguard future production, and the first need has been to assist breeders and rearers. This is the reason why we are proposing that the calf subsidy should be more than doubled, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, bringing the total direct support for beef production to about £100 million a year. This is equivalent to about £2·50 per live hundredweight. This help should work, in our view, throughout the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned slaughtering. The slaughtering of cows and calves has increased from the unusually low level of the last two years.

1073
But the national herd is much larger, more calves are being produced, and there are many older cows in the herd which were retained for breeding last year instead of being culled. On the other hand, I think the present level of slaughter is not unduly high: it is about the same as three years ago when the herd was much smaller. I was very glad to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about the intervention support, and the agreement that he gave to the Government's policy of removing this by stages. Of course, putting beef into intervention cold stores cannot be in the industry's long-term interests. It is much more important to produce a bigger market by stimulating consumption at prices which housewives can afford. The difficulties in other E.E.C. countries have been largely created by consumer resistance to artificially high prices supported by intervention.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked us about renegotiation. Beef is one of our main concerns in renegotiation of the C.A.P., and we have put forward changes in the marketing régime whereby intervention buying would play a much less important part. I am sure that we can agree a solution which results in a fair return to cattle farmers, without raising beef prices to a level which deters consumption. I was asked about calf slaughtering. The value of the calf subsidy is in its effect on calf producers, and this is the best point at which to introduce it and to encourage the production of calves, which are our future beef supplies. I hope that I have answered all the questions which have been raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
5.7 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, for the reform of the House of Lords. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in one respect this Question is simply a straightforward request for information. Quite simply, I should like to know whether the Government have any plans at this particular time. On another level, it is an expression of my concern and I happen to know, because of the conversations I have had in your Lordships' House and outside of it since
1074
this Motion was put down that that concern is shared by a great many noble Lords; and I am encouraged by the number of Lords who have put down their names to speak. I am unhappy about the present position. I find it unsatisfactory, and I should like something done about it. I am well aware that the Government have some much more urgent problems than the future of your Lordships' House on their agenda at the moment. Nevertheless, I hope that in the midst of the work that they have to do they will not overlook the fact that reform of your Lordships' House has been under discussion since 1911, and that apart from the Life Peerages Act 1958 we still have not moved forward one single inch.
As your Lordships all know, it is difficult to describe the constitution of the House of Lords. It is like trying to describe cricket to an Abyssinian through a Greek interpreter. We explain that some Peers inherit their present title; that some Peers are appointed, but not elected, and that they are here for life; and that, irrespective of any Election results, there is a built-in Conservative majority. By that time you have lost them. But when all this has been admitted, we usually turn around and say,"Never mind—it works." That is the main thing about it. It may be an anachronism, but it works. My Lords, I would be the last to deny this. I know that it works, and there is a great deal of evidence to support this. There is the work on Government Bills which leads to useful Amendments; the idea that we are a Chamber of second thoughts; and the fact that we are very often a test bench for new ideas and new legislation. The classic example, of course, was the reform of the abortion law, where we began here the great public debate and, in essence, initiated the eventual reform. There are other areas, obviously, in which our work is useful—not all of it done in this Chamber.
My Lords, that is not the question. If we are honest we have to ask ourselves, can we work better? Can we make a greater contribution to the Parliamentary process? To go further, we ought to ask ourselves more fundamental questions: whether, for example, the work we do could not be done better by some other kind of Chamber or Committee, or, even, whether we are strictly necessary? We

1075
ought to ask ourselves whether the world would stop for one second in its cosmic flight if this place were abolished tomorrow and some other second Chamber put in its place, or nothing at all?
My Lords, it is difficult for anybody who has sat here, as I have for ten years, to answer such questions objectively. If one has the privilege of being a Member of this House one is a Member of what has been described as the best club in the world. It is true that one would have to look hard to find a place with a more congenial, pleasant and seductive atmosphere. I remember a Labour Minister way back in 1964, flushed with victory at the Election, meeting me in our guest room for a drink. He looked around the guest room and said:"We could do with this space. You don't really need it. We will take it over ". That Labour Minister is now a respected Member of this House and I am sure that he would be the first one on the barricades if there were to be any attempt by the other place to take over our accommodation. That is what happens in this House. In some ways it is a kind of lotus land, where even the most rebellious heart becomes softened. In fact, when I first came here I remember listening to a noble Lord who unhappily has now gone to that bourne from which no traveller returns. He was carrying on at some length and I was reminded of the phrase from Tennyson's poem:
" In the afternoon they came unto a land in which it seemed always afternoon."
Here the rough edges are smoothed, all is sweetness, courtesy and light. Here the rebel lies down with the reactionary, the pleb. with the professor and the Bishop with the business man—all in perfect harmony. As the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said once:
" We are all decent chaps here."
It is in this atmosphere that the danger lies. It can and does create complacency, a resistance to change and even illusions of grandeur, the greatest danger of all. Why alter something that is so good, so comfortable and that works in its creaking kind of way. Why stir things up? Why not let sleeping Peers lie? I believe that we have to resist these feelings and that we must be on our guard against self-delusion. If we do
1076
this, we shall see that there is a great deal in our present situation which is wrong and which ought to be changed. Because we are not talking about a club, we are talking about an arm of the Parliamentary process, a second Chamber which is paid for by taxpayers' money.
Since 1968 there has been a deadly silence on this issue of reform. A curtain has descended on it. I do not intend to go into all the details of the reform proposals put forward that year. They are all available to your Lordships. But two things happened that year: first, proposals for reform were agreed between all parties in your Lordships' House after a great deal of discussion; and secondly, when the Government were defeated here—I think on an issue about Rhodesia—they threw out our proposals and introduced their own Bill to reform this House. That Bill was killed off by a strange alliance; a political pincer-movement with Enoch Powell at one arm and Michael Foot at the other—two eminent Parliamentarians. Both opposed the Bill for different reasons: Enoch Powell did not want to see any fundamental change here, preferring to leave matters as they were. That is a simplification of his argument, but basically that was it. Michael Foot opposed change because he is fundamentally an abolitionist. He felt that the Bill might lead to a stronger and more viable House of Lords, and he was against that, he just wanted to get rid of us. Since the withdrawal of that Bill we have heard nothing. Reform has become a dead issue and our situation seems, in some respects, to have worsened.
I am concerned, for example, at the present Government's attitude to your Lordships' House. I want to stress that there is nothing personal in the remarks I am about to make. I respect and admire the job being done by the Leader of the House and by my noble friends on the Front Bench. But Government policy seems to me to be to treat this House as a rather unimportant junior school to be run by rather junior masters. Let us consider the facts: when the Prime Minister was creating this Government after the last election, he showed scant concern or respect or gave little time to your Lordships' House. When the Government-making was finished we emerged with the meagre total of nine

1077
Ministers out of a total of almost 90. If one excludes the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor, because they are obligatory and you cannot get rid of them, we are left with seven Ministers of middle and junior rank. Together with six Whips they have to cover the whole range of Government policy.
We had an example this afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who occupies a busy desk at the Home Office, had to cross the road and take on the heavy assignment of the Prices Bill. That, to me, is quite unworkable and wrong. He did a brilliant job, but it is not fair to load a man down in that way. The incredible fact is that our Ministers do so well. But is it fair or reasonable to place them in this position? Is it fair or reasonable to place this House in the position when we are, to some extent, at the mercy of the briefs that are given out by the Civil Service? Is it right that this House should have no direct Ministerial contact with many key Departments, such as Prices, Environment, Housing, and so forth. I think it is shameful, it is a snub to your Lordships' House and something should be said about it if only from the Back-Benches. The Prime Minister can hardly argue that the talent is not available to take up additional Ministerial posts because after all he has been responsible since 1964 for sending about 150 people here and he must have thought, presumably, that they had some quality, otherwise he would not have nominated them.
I believe that the Government's attitude to the House of Lords is symptomatic of a fairly general feeling in the House of Commons. We ought to face the fact that there is no doubt—and this applies particularly to the Labour Benches there—that there is a legacy of suspicion and distrust of a non-elected House which has a permanent Conservative majority and powers of delay. I do not think that we shall make any progress at all until that distrust has been removed and it can only be removed by reform.
We could work better and could carry a greater share of the Parliamentary load, provided the problems that appear to divide us from the other place were resolved. It is important in a wider context. We all know that there is among
1078
ordinary people, a certain cynicism about Parliamentary institutions and that cynicism is not relieved by a situation in which obvious and civilised reforms to Parliament are simply put on one side. I do not want this place to go on as it is. I do not want the privilege of being a member of an exclusive club. I do not want to be a Peer in a gilded cage. I want the talents of this House to play as great a part as possible in Parliament and in the Parliamentary process. On a personal note, may I say that like many other noble Lords I was asked to come here in 1963 to help strengthen the Benches on this side of the House when we were down to about thirty Labour Peers. I have done my best to make a contribution in those ten years—not as great as I should have liked perhaps, because like many other noble Lords I still have to earn a living. I do not want to make too much of this, but it ought to be remembered sometimes, that I, together with a number of other noble Lords gave up my vote, gave up my opportunity to stand for the other place. Every time a number of noble Lords attend here they make a considerable financial sacrifice and in doing so indirectly subsidise the business of Government. We are entitled to be treated with respect and we are entitled to ask that reasonable reforms shall be put in motion.
There was talk, as I said, of reform back in 1911 and apart from the Life Peers Act, we have scarcely moved forward since that time. I believe that the House of Lords should seize the initiative in this matter. I believe that our Front Bench, which I regret to see is so sparsely represented by senior Ministers to-day, should not allow the situation to drift on. We simply cannot allow ourselves to stand still. Few institutions can have been so constantly and convincingly criticised than your Lordships House; few can be more self-evidently undemocratic; yet few have lasted for so long. This suggests to me that there must be something which is basically good and useful at the heart of this place, and it is because I want that to be preserved and made more effective that I beg leave to ask this Question.
5.21 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, many years ago I was asked by a friend to

1079
attempt one of those mathematical problems which appeals to a certain type of childish mentality such as mine. By the time I was ready to give up and ask for the answer, I had forgotten who had asked me the original question. The problem was this: On one side of the road you have three houses and on the other side you have a gasworks, a waterworks and a power station. Each of the three houses must be connected to each of the three services, and none of the nine lines thus drawn must cross one another. Often when I have a spare moment with pencil and paper I go quietly mad trying to work out the answer. The first eight lines are easy but the ninth always has to cross somewhere. I believe the solution to be impossible, but I still go on trying to find it. The problem posed by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, falls into much the same category. We are told that we ought not to have the present composition of the House (which we know works) because it is undemocratic. We must not have an elected Second Chamber (which works in other countries) because another place would not like it. Any other solution is acceptable, provided it does not involve patronage. Obviously, here, too, the lines must cross somewhere.
I do not propose to say very much about the present composition of your Lordships' House. In principle it is hard to defend and in practice it does not need defending. However, there are two widely believed myths that ought to be dispelled. The first is that there is a large body of"backwoodsmen"who never normally come to the House, but who are ready to drop everything and stream into the Palace of Westminster to"chivvy"the Labour Party at the crack of a Tory Whip. My Lords, these people simply do not exist. As a Whip, I sometimes wish that they did but as an ardent upholder of your Lordships' House, I am more often very glad that they do not! Some noble Lords come to this House once or twice a week; others, owing to the distance from their homes and their involvement with local commitments, come less frequently, varying from twice a month to possibly as little as twice a year. When a subject of particular interest or irritation comes before your Lordships, the attendances of the rarer
1080
Members of this House are inclined to coincide. On the days when just the odd unfamiliar face is seen, nobody notices; but when a number appear together the myth of the"backwoodsmen"gains strength. These less frequent attenders, by the very fact that they do spend so much time engaged in their particular occupation, are among the most valuable Members of the House when they do attend. They are also no more likely sheepishly to follow the Conservative Front Bench into the Division Lobbies than are your Lordships who come every day.
The second myth is that if only the House of Lords could get rid of its hereditary Peers, the Press, the public and another place would pay very much more respect to what it said and did. I do not believe that the country at large, apart from a vociferous minority, objects to hereditary titles, even if they carry with them an hereditary seat in Parliament. It is true that the"undemocratic hereditary content"is used as one of the slurs for discrediting the Second Chamber by its detractors. But it is only one of many. The House of Lords is also accused of being an eventide home for superannuated politicians; a place where unpopular or intractable Members of Parliament can be kicked upstairs; where aspiring politicians, consistently unsuccessful in elections, are found an easy political berth; and a repository for patronage.
And, my Lords, if you are talking about democracy, what could be more undemocratic than for a candidate who has offered himself for a Parliamentary seat for a period of five years and been accepted by his constituents in good faith, to hand over both it and them to a senior colleague who has already been rejected by the electors of another constituency, in exchange for a Peerage? If you deny critics the opportunity to object to the Lords on hereditary grounds, these other grounds for complaint will still remain and, indeed, come to the fore; and they are not all without some foundation in fact. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has suggested that perhaps a Second Chamber is not necessary at all. All I can say is that if he would like to see all the major Bills go on to the Statute Book in the state in which they reach us from another place, I would not!

1081
When the all-Party Committee met some years ago to discuss methods of reform, they did not even consider the possibility of an elected Second Chamber. It is generally accepted that this would be a non-starter in the eyes of Members of another place. It would mean that they would always be looking nervously over their shoulders in the fear that an elected Upper House might gain as much power and even more influence than themselves. And I think that fear might be justified. Nevertheless, I believe that an elected Second Chamber is the only workable alternative to your Lordships' present House. If and when financial circumstances make it no longer possible for your Lordships to continue to work long hours on an expenses-only basis, or if and when the continual sniping by uninformed detractors, the ignoring by the Press and the treatment meted out to this House by successive Governments cause your Lordships to wonder why you should bother, it is an elected Second Chamber that will be the only answer.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Willis, regrets the still-birth of the most recent reform proposals, I believe that had the Parliament (No. 2) Bill been enacted, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. I had the strongest possible doubts about it at the time but since then, as a Whip in Government and in Opposition, I have been considering, as they occurred, how the reformed House would have weathered the stresses of the last few years. I think that it would have ground to a halt before now and that already a new and more drastic reform would have become essential.
Your Lordships' present House is, and any reformed House, if it is to be of any use at all, must be complementary to, and not a pale imitation of, another place. Another place, by its very nature is overwhelmingly concerned with the Party-politically contentious _ parts of Bills, and the guillotine procedure leaves vast tracts of less controversial clauses unexamined for your Lordships to deal with. And this your Lordships' House is admirably suited to do. We are, broadly speaking, not over-concerned with Party issues, for the very reason of the extreme imbalance between the two sides. For the Labour Party. there is no point in playing a game which they can never win
1082
and, for the Conservative Party, one which they are unlikely to lose.
But you really could not reform this House without making the numbers on each side more fairly balanced. That of itself would bring back the emphasis to Party politics. Members would be chosen by virtue of the fact that they belonged to a particular political Party or to none. The Whips on each side would have a strong moral control over their Back-Benchers in that they could reasonably argue that it would be unfair to use one of the strictly rationed Party votes to vote against their Front Bench, or even to abstain. And whereas Members of another place owe their seats (and therefore their ultimate allegiance) to their constituents, Members of your Lordships' reformed House would owe their seats (and therefore, it is to be feared, their ultimate allegiance) to their Party leaders. Instead of, and at the expense of, examining and improving the less controversial parts of legislation that need it, your Lordships would tend to re-fight the Party battles already decided in another place. I would ask your Lordships to consider what chances the Party managers would have of getting a really controversial programme of legislation through such a House and what improvements would be achieved to Bills in the process.
The second way in which your Lordships' House is complementary to another place is in its"amateur"status. Members of another place are, or should be, politicians first, although they may have secondary occupations as well. Members of your Lordships' House may have their main interests outside, and therefore can bring a different viewpoint to Parliament. With a more equally balanced and Party-conscious House, this. too, must end. Both Government and Opposition Parties would expect their voting Members to be present and available to vote whenever and for however long they were needed. Who, then, would be these full voting Members of a reformed house such as the noble Lord. Lord Willis, has suggested? Not the distinguished men who are active in many fields and whose practical and up-to-date knowledge is made available to Parliament through your Lordships' present House. The very occupations that make them so valuable to your Lordships would

1083
make it impossible for them to come here often enough to vote. Not the retired Members of another place who bring political wisdom and experience to your Lordships' House, and who, after 15 or 20 years down the corridor, are prepared to serve on, in an easier political life, free from being at the beck and call of their Party Whips. An easier political life is what they would not get; free from the Whips they would not be. I doubt whether these noble Lords would either want, or would indeed be able, to put in the long and late hours that an active part in a reformed Second Chamber would involve.
My Lords, it is true that both these categories of noble Lords could be included in some form of amateur, nonvoting, second tier, so that they could still take part in what are known as the general interest debates on Wednesday afternoons. Although there is a school of thought which maintains that these debates are the most important contribution your Lordships' House makes to politics, I sometimes wonder to whom in fact they are of general interest. They certainly do not seem to interest the noble Lords who take part in them, as many of them are out of the Chamber much of the time when they themselves are not actually speaking. They do not interest the newspapers, nor through them the general public, because they have usually gone to press long before the debates are finished. As for the Government Departments concerned, the speeches are too detailed, too wide-ranging, and, in most cases, too long for the Minister and the officials in the Box to be able to do more than pick out a couple of points from each to answer at the, winding-up. The bulk of each debate, first-class though it may be, goes into mothballs to be preserved for posterity in the bound volumes of Hansard.
The voting Members of your Lordships' reformed House would have to be a new type of Peer, young enough and uncommitted enough to work the same hours and to give the same priority in their lives to Parliament, as do Members of another place. I cannot help feeling that a man who wants to live that sort of political life would be a pretty moderate chap if he were prepared to opt for a safe and easy berth in your Lordships' House, rather than taking his chance of
1084
getting into another place where the political action will still be. But perhaps the worst aspect of this Party-politically-orientated semi-professional second class Second Chamber, is that its Members would have to be paid, and paid fairly well. An unexacting job, which must be given to a relatively young man, salaried, with Parliamentary holidays, with security for life, or at least for the rest of his working life, and a title, too. What an unprecedented opportunity for patronage to put into the hands of future Party leaders.
5.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, in previous debates on this subject in recent years my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London has voiced from these Benches the desire of the Bishops to support the kind of reform of the House of Lords embodied in the 1968 White Paper which was seen, I believe, as a contribution to the evolution of a modern Parliament for Britain. In his absence to-day, I rise to reiterate our continuing interest in this matter, and our readiness to co-operate, if and when the time comes. in the prepartion of any new proposals for forwarding the reform of this House, which is something that I would venture to suggest is in fact going on all the time in a manner very typical of this country.
I was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time of the 1968 discussions when the major proposals under consideration were the reduction in the size of the voting House and the existence of non-voting Peers alongside those entrusted with a vote. It was perhaps inevitable that proposals that were intended to reduce the total number of each category of Peers should not have included any suggestion for adding to the House representatives of some of those important groupings in society hitherto without adequate representation. But I confess that I was surprised at the time, and I have continued to be so since sitting on these Benches, that the 1968 White Paper made no reference whatever to the representation in your Lordships' House of the Leaders of the other religious bodies besides those of the Church of England.
It may well be that it was thought best not to raise this matter until the Report of the Chadwick Commission on the Church and State had been published and their proposals debated. But this was the

1085
fifth Commission on this subject in this century, and there is no certainty whatever that their findings will prove any more acceptable to either of the parties concerned than previous efforts of this kind. But one of the unanimous recommendations of the Chadwick Commission on the Church and State was that others beside Bishops of the Church of England should be chosen for membership of the House of Lords. In developing this argument, the Commission state that while being content with an ex officio system, they would not be averse to the choice of the particular persons rather than of particular office holders. There would have to be a retiring age, such as now effectively operates for Bishops, if religious leaders in this House were to be those still actively involved in the leadership of the Churches.
As one who was associated for over twenty years with the British Council of Churches, I know from first-hand experience what a distinguished pair of leaders were elected every two years from the Churches of the British Isles to serve that Council as Vice-Presidents. Several of them would have added great distinction to this House. I am thinking of such men as Principal John Baillie, a former Moderator in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and another Moderator of that Church, Professor James Pitt-Watson whom your Lordships will remember presented the Bible to the Queen at her Coronation. And in the English Free Churches, men like Dr. Hugh Marten and Dr. Leslie Cooke—to mention only names of those no longer with us—would both have been forceful and gracious Members of this House, as would leading dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, past and present.
I have seen it suggested in an article in the journal Parliamentary Affairs on"Prelates in Parliament"that it is possible to calculate a grand total of no less than 58 spiritual representatives from all the regions and traditions of the British Isles, but this is unrealistic and perhaps only serves to show the over-representation of one Church at the present time, and to lose sight of the fact that the Churches are not only represented by their ordained members, but also by many active lay members as well.
The Chadwick Report on the Church and the State has of course raised again
1086
the question of the manner in which Church of England Bishops are appointed. They were not agreed on their recommendations, and two sets of proposals are at present under discussion. If either of these were to be enacted with the agreement of all the three political Parties, the delicate system of checks and balances that goes to make up the present Church and State relationship in England would inevitably come under review, including the representation of the English Diocesan Bishops in this House. That might well provide the moment for widening rather than reducing the representation of religious leaders in this House.
Some of us who sit on these Benches are immensely proud to be the present holders of Bishoprics that have provided this House with Lords Spiritual for several centuries. Nothing that I have said is intended to suggest that we are not ready and willing to continue to play our part in the Government of this country, to lead your Lordships in prayer each day and to continue to enjoy the friendship and companionship of the Lords Temporal.
It is of course easier for some of us than others to attend, and there may well be a case for allowing a Bishop to opt out in favour of a colleague. I was appointed a Bishop at the age of 46 and waited nine years before becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. A Bishop appointed at the age of 60 sometimes has only a very short tenure of office here. Perhaps this is another argument for some system of selection, rather than for representation ex officio. But whether or not the manner of our appointment is changed, whether or not our numbers here continue as at present or are reduced, many of us hope that at some time when the opportunity occurs some of those of other traditions with whom we are now working so closely up and down the country may be summoned to sit here with some of us who are privileged at present, not to be Peers but to be Lords Spiritual in your Lordships' House.
5.41 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with the utmost respect to the right reverend Prelate, I cannot imagine how the addition of those associated with denominations other than the Church of England

1087
could in any form resemble what is meant by"reform of the House of Lords ". Nevertheless, I make no complaint because, strange as it may seem this is in one sense a democratic Assembly. By that I mean that every Member of your Lordships' House has a right to express his opinions. Therefore I make no complaint.
I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on the Question he has posed—a very important one. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships what that Question is. He desires to ascertain from the Government what their plans are about the future of this Assembly. The answer is simple: they have no plans, and for a very good reason. They are concerned at the present time, indeed they have been concerned for quite a long time, and will be concerned for some time ahead, about future General Elections. That lust for power. That is what it is all about. The idea that the present Government—I add not simply because they happen to be in a minority—should concern themselves with the future of the House of Lords; have we not enough trouble?—a mere matter of inflation; concern about a deficit in the balance of payments; uncertainty as to our future in the E.E.C! May I in a digression direct the attention of Members of your Lordships' House to a leading article in the Financial Times where, strangely enough, they have put (if I may use a somewhat vulgar expression) a kibosh on the whole of this conception of a European Community. Yes, the Government have quite enough to handle, quite enough on their plate.
This controversy about reform of the House of Lords is by no means original. It was debated at the time of the Reform Movement, a long time ago, and even before that. The Chartists were very much concerned about it. They made no mistake about what they wanted: they wanted abolition the idea of reform never occurred to them. They wanted the vote, but not the House of Lords. What is to be done about it? Never has there been a piece of proposed legislation concerning what is called the reform of the House of Lords which has contained definite ideas as to how reform was to be achieved. If by reform we mean vesting your Lordships' House with authority, even to the extent of defying the Mem-
1088
bers of another place, of turning down their proposals when they emerge, never has such a scheme been proposed. What is the position at present? Let us take a cool, hard look at ourselves. We are just a convenience for the other place. It is true they permit your Lordships' House to initiate legislation. But what do we do with it? We debate it; we seek to amend it, well knowing that, unless what we do is agreeable to the Members of another place, it will be rejected with contempt. That is the situation. Let us face the realities.
What about the position of the Labour Party? It is quite clear. It has been clear for a long time. Occasionally they pass a resolution at their annual conference. At one time there were many resolutions on the subject; in recent years, only one. It comes from some remote constituency, demanding the abolition of the House of Lords. Nobody pays any attention to it. It is not even remitted to the National Executive, as are some other resolutions. It is dismissed with contempt. There is complete silence on that subject, and for a very good reason. There are many members of the Labour Party who do not want any reform of the House of Lords. They are not going to give up a grievance of this kind as readily as some people imagine. If anything goes wrong, blame the House of Lords! Do we want to make it even worse than that by transforming Members of your Lordships' House, after an election, into senators vested with authority, defying the other place? They will never accept that. They prefer that the grievance should remain. That was the fundamental reason why when the relevant Bill came before the other place some years ago, largely the product of the fertile brain of the late Mr. Crossman, they rejected it almost with contempt, although there had been some understanding between the two Front Benches.The usual channels were operating, but to no effect.
So what is to be done about it? There are some modifications that could be acceptable to Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, made what I consider to be an excellent speech, except that I have one criticism to make. It is a criticism I make of many speeches. I do not complain about the content of the speeches, not at all. Who am I to object to the

1089
content of other people's speeches? They have much more expertise than I possess. What I object to is the reading of speeches. Too many briefs are available. Too many speech writers are available. I have never been able to employ one myself. It would be some modification of our present situation if Members of your Lordships' House just rose in their places and addressed the House with words that flowed. If they do not flow it is just too bad as long as they have ideas to express. It is the ventilation of ideas that matters. Indeed, that is the charm and value of this Assembly.
When we talk about reform, what do we really mean? Does"reform"mean an elected Assembly? Is that what it means, because if that is what it means it is out. We can dismiss it at once. It would never be accepted by the other place. Even if the two Front Benches came to an agreement on that topic, it would not be acceptable. I doubt whether it would be acceptable to the general public.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? In answer to the noble Lord's question, I think"reform"means two things: first, it means the proposal which was set out in the 1968 Agreement between the two Front Benches and the three Parties; secondly, it means giving this House adequate representation in the Ministries so that our work can be more directive.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if it means representation in the Ministries, that is a horse of another colour and there I would agree with my noble friend. But the 1968 proposals were quite different. Let me mention one of them. I am bound to recall it, because it affected me personally. One of the proposals was that nobody over the age of 72 should be permitted to vote. If the reform had been accepted, all those under 72 would have been allowed to vote. There was some suggestion also that those under 72—not a vast number—nominated for the most part, should receive a salary. Those over the age of 72 should receive nothing at all. That was one reason for my objection! I could have managed without the salary. I could have managed very well without coming to your Lordships' House. In fact, I had to manage in the other place for well over 40 years. Probably I could have remained there longer.
1090
Indeed, if I had known that the Members in another place were going to receive these high salaries, with secretaries, all the amenities, and trips abroad, I doubt whether I would have resigned.
Let us come down to brass tacks about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, made one very useful proposal. It was that our numbers are phenomenal, almost 800 or 900, including the backwoodsmen who never come here and who have no intention of coming here. The first thing we ought to do is ask them whether they ever intend to come here. If not, rule them out. There is no reason why they should take the Oath of Allegiance if they do not intend to come. There are many who ask for absence without leave. All right, they can come if they wish. I would reduce the numbers. Naturally, it would have to be the hereditary Peers because, as the noble Lord. Lord Denham, rightly said, they have the power at any time to turn the Labour Opposition down. It happened in the past over the Industrial Relations Bill, over the E.E.C., over a number of other items of legislation and Motions, and so on. It is all wrong. If we had an electoral system and it was understood that anybody could allow himself to be nominated no matter what his age, that would be another matter. Again, we come hard up against the fact that neither the electors nor the other place would ever find it agreeable that your Lordships' House should be vested with authority.
I shall tell Members of your Lordships' House what I have thought about this matter. My noble friend Lord Willis suggested that we were inclined to conform—even mavericks like myself—after a long period of turbulence in the other place. When they come to this Assembly it gets them down, somehow. Everyone was certain that I would conform, but I have done nothing of the sort. Perhaps I intervene too often, but what am I to do? Why do I come here? I have nowhere else to go. Only yesterday I was at a function and somebody asked me whether I was enjoying the House of Lords. I said that the term"enjoyment"was hardly appropriate, but I found it intensely interesting so long as I was allowed to express myself. That is the crux of the whole matter. It is a forum where Members can express themselves. One thing can be said about it, with

1091
truth and in complete honesty. There is high quality so far as speeches are concerned, as high a quality as is to be found in another place. There is expertise, vast knowledge and fundamental understanding on a variety of topics. The speeches are worth listening to. Indeed, it is sometimes more enjoyable to listen than to speak. I am not suggesting anything improper to other Members of your Lordships' House.
Therefore, I regard this as a place to be retained. I do not ask that we should rid ourselves of the hereditary principle, and I shall give a reason why. It is not because I like the hereditary principle; I think it is an anachronism, it is outmoded. But there arc some very able people indeed among the aristocracy, strange as it may seem. I hope that I shall not be expelled from the Labour Party for saying that! But we ought to hear what they have to say. As for Life Peers, I agree that they are a mixed bag. There are some good, some bad and some indifferent. I hope they will not mind my saying that, but it happens to be true.
That is the best illustration I can give of why this forum should be retained, with certain modifications as I have suggested—fewer hereditary Peers, and people who come here should express their opinions but think about them before they express them. I would no more abandon the House of Lords than I would think of abandoning the Changing of the Guard, or abolishing the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, or the Tower of London or Trooping of the Colour. We need a place like this. Of course we have no authority—do not let us deceive ourselves—but we can talk, we can argue, we can meet people, and we can be friendly. This is the most friendly institution that I have ever been in; certainly more friendly than the other place. There is the fact that in the Dining Room you have a long table and you all sit together; whereas in the other place they are not so democratic, they all sit at different tables. They cannot agree with each other. We are much more objective than they are. They are always quarrelling. We do not quarrel very much. Of course, that could be corrected very readily if necessary.
So I beg your Lordships not to trouble unduly about the reform of the House of
1092
Lords. We have so many other topics on our plate. Let us address ourselves to the economic issues which concern us. Let us occasionally have a consensus of opinion, occasionally a little bickering, a little argument, a dialogue, a discussion. That is all very well. But a consensus of opinion in one Assembly in this country of ours, at least a place where we can talk freely and democratically even if we are not democratically elected, where we can talk freely expressing our opinions, unafraid to express ourselves—that is the essence of democracy. It is not merely a Parliamentary institution; it is behaviour in political life that matters, not the mechanism. Let us retain the machinery.
So I venture in those few words—not so few as they ought perhaps to be—to express my opinion. Here we are. Let us make the best of it, let us try to modify our procedure, let us try to improve it, let us try to make it better. All that can be done by a dialogue among ourselves. We do not require the assistance of anybody else to help us in this respect. Let us remain where we are. I see nothing wrong with that. Nobody can come along with a foolproof concept of how to reform this Assembly. My noble friend did his best but, if I may so so with respect, he failed, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Denham, failed, and as indeed we shall all fail if we seek to reform this House of Lords. It cannot be done. Of course we can be logical and abolish it, but what shall we gain by that? Nothing at all. So let us remain where we are.
6.1 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I come next on the list because the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has had to withdraw his name, and after listening to the wonderfully interesting and entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I almost feel that I, too, should withdraw. One thing I think we all learned from him—although there were many others—is that if a retiring age is to be proposed for this House it should not be less than 100.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for the charming way in which he opened this debate, and I have also listened to the other speakers, with whom I have mostly agreed. I shall have to repeat one or two of the things that have already been said, some of them rather obvious, because I cannot develop a little

1093
argument which I want to put before your Lordships without doing so. Considering first what is said to be wrong with the House of Lords, people who come here are always impressed with the House of Lords. They do not go away and say that it should be abolished; they are usually impressed with our standard of debate, they are very impressed (if they stay long enough) with our expertise and the number of experts we can summon on almost any subject one likes to name, and they are impressed with our manners—and I think that is a matter of some importance in the world at the present time. It is usually acknowledged that our revision of legislation is better and more thorough than in the Commons and our initiation of new legislation in the form of Private Members' Bills is of course easier in this House than in another place. Our powers have (I think rightly) been curtailed from time to time but I still think our influence is considerable, not only within but also outside the House.
What then is the complaint? It is really that we are here either through heredity or through patronage. If there were to be a reform, I certainly would not want it to be all one and not the other. I believe there are now about 220 Life Peers and although of course we do not come every day, very often I suppose up to nearly one half of those attending will be Life Peers. Whether we are Life Peers or not we all stand for whichever Party we please; we are not under the same compulsion to vote as they are in another place and on sensitive issues like abortion, contraception, animal experiment or organ transplantation we can talk without fear of upsetting our constituents. As has so often been said, the hereditary principle brings us young men as well as older men, coming from families with generations of people who have served the country well, both at home and in many cases abroad. It is said that our Constitution is illogical. So, my Lords, is nature. Nature, like the House of Lords, works through evolution and on the whole, as has already been said, it works well. I would far rather be here through patronage or heredity than by the election of a majority of pretty ignorant people such as one finds
1094
in some of the constituencies in this country, despite universal education.
Leaving the House of Lords temporarily on one side, what is wrong with the country at the present time? Surely we must agree that standards have sadly deteriorated: standards of decency, standards of behaviour, standards of honesty. Hooligans from Britain visit countries abroad, terrify the townspeople and wreck their football pitches. Vandals destroy works of art and railway carriages. Students, who used to be proud of their universities, seem only to be interested in demonstrations and are not very sure exactly what they are demonstrating about, and in doing so they deny free speech to others. What would a neutral observer from some imaginary planet say if he landed here and watched us all at work in Britain? Would he say that there was too little democracy or would he say that there was too much democracy? Democracy is fine if it means freedom, but if it does not mean freedom and it merely allows the riff-rail to take over and terrorise the rest, then we have to think twice of what our democratic ideals—and I believe we all have them—really mean to us. Recent events, the virtual failure (as I see it) of the last two Governments and the results of the General Election have shown that this country is divided. In the two-Party system there is no room for real democracy in the sense that the voice of all sections is heard. We must vote black or white and, to put it bluntly, a large number of the voters do not want the Leader of either of the two main Parties. The House which needs reforming, my Lords—and urgently—is the House of Commons. As a start I think we must bring in proportional representation.
I should like to end now with two quotations—from myself. First:
" If democracy is the best safeguard against other and worse forms of Government—despotism, tyranny and dictatorship—then perhaps the House of Lords is the best safeguard against the excesses of democracy."
The other quotation is:
" If everything were put to the vote we should have football, we should have boxing and we should probably have public executions but we should have no chamber music."
Finally, my Lords, whatever you do with our House, for God's sake do not make it another elected Chamber! One has already proved too much.
6.9 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as is obvious from the speeches so far we are all obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing this Question on a most penetrating and thought-provoking speech. I think the same words could be applied to my noble friend Lord Denham, in his approach to the subject. Obviously both speeches were based on a careful study and long knowledge of the problems. Indeed, in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I often regret that, as he said, his own affairs press upon him so hard that we hear so little of him in our day-to-day business. I, like everybody else, look forward to the Minister's reply; but like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I have a shrewd suspicion that I know what it is going to be. It is going to be:"We are going to do nothing because nothing can be done ". However, as one of the dwindling number of original Life Peers I feel I have a small contribution to make to this most interesting debate. Like others, I greatly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and I only wish that I had more of his gifts though, of course, if you have not got his gifts and you try to speak without notes you are inclined to be repetitive and to speak for too long.
My Lords, I am not altogether happy about how the Life Peerages Act 1958 has worked out. I feel that perhaps the title has been treated too much as an honour for past services. For instance, I think it is a pity that Life Peerages are included in the Birthday and New Year Honours. Of course it is a great honour and a privilege to be a Life Peer; but to accept it, as I saw it and as I see it, means to undertake an unenforceable obligation to serve Parliament and the State for a number of years. But I think it stands in a different category from the honour pure and simple, to serve, not just as Lobby-fodder, but in the creative, living process of Parliamentary Government. In other words, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in saying that we can express our feelings here, in fact it is the duty of Life Peers to do so. Admittedly, separate lists of Life Peerages are published but why are any names included in the normal Honours Lists?
When I came here I felt that the hereditary principle was on the way out, but
1096
I did not take long to become converted to a belief in it. I am most interested that not only has the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said so, but my mind goes back to another eminent Parliamentarian who came to this House and who became converted as well. I refer to the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth. After all, it is an important part of the basis for a Second Chamber which has very limited powers. Also hereditary Peers have a spread which in a measure covers the demand, which is reasonable, that a Second Chamber should have regional connotations amongst its membership.
As other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Platt, have said, I think that it would be a mistake for membership of a revisory chamber with limited powers to be elective, and as already pointed out by others speakers that would mix ill with the other place. The hereditary system seems the only way of enriching a House such as this with young blood without any overwhelming additive of Party political leanings. I hail the Cross-Benchers; I hail the young hereditary Peer, the Socialist son of a Conservative father and grandson of a Liberal who scooped the driven grouse section of the clay pigeon shoot the other day. Let us have more like that. I cannot understand why the Tory leadership has followed the Socialist lead in ceasing to create the occasional hereditary Peer to make up the number, which must diminish as time goes on. If you allow it to diminish too far you find a quite unwanted, unnecessary and undesirable increasing cachet attached to an hereditary title. My Lords, it also seems curious to me that the Socialist Left, who want to abolish this House altogether, are the very people who most use the words"working class ". To-day, these words seem to be the spring from which class consciousness flows. That class consciousness, I am sure, does not flow from the Tories, nor from your Lordships' House, despite what I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, described as"a gilded cage ".
Although I may be a little unhappy about the way the Life Peerage Act has worked, it has undoubtedly been a wise, a major and on the whole a successful reform. The only change that I suggest, therefore, is a resumption of the creation of hereditary Peers should there be any individual who would accept such under

1097
present conditions, remembering, of course, that it is now open to their heirs to renounce the title if they choose. What I am going to say may well help to demolish one of the myths to which my noble friend Lord Denham referred. Scions do not necessarily follow their fathers' political allegiance. We have Conservative Peers whose fathers were Socialist or Liberal. Socialist and Cross-Bench Peers whose fathers were Conservative; but for this proposal in regard to the hereditary system, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I feel we should let things alone; and I imagine that is what the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, will say in his reply, and I look forward to it.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am not going to say anything of the kind.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, that is fascinating, and I look foward all the more to the reply though I imagine that Government have a good deal too much on their plate to take a bite at this now.
Listening to this debate one other thing crossed my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said,"We must do something. What shall we do? Is it possible that, with the ever-increasing influence so many of us have, we can persuade the media, not only in the Press but also in broadcasts, to give more coverage to what goes on in this House. It may go into mothballs, as my noble friend Lord Denham said, but a good deal of it could very well be conveyed to the people. Talking of Scotland, with the newspapers going to Press at seven o'clock, I notice that the Scottish papers did not contain one single word about the debate on Scottish transport, which contained some remarkable material and which took place in this House yesterday.
As for the abolition of the House, of course the full-blooded members of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. called the"the wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trade Union Congress" which tinged with red, would like to see any Second Chamber abolished. This the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said. Alas! before that is even likely, or indeed possible, it may be that this noble House will find itself standing, as it has stood before, between a dictatorship either from the Right or from the Left, and the People.
1098
Before I sit down I should like to refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate and his thoughts about the representation of other religious bodies in the Second Chamber. I shall certainly see that Hansard reaches the proper quarters in the Church of Scotland. I know that thought had been given to this at the time I was made a Life Peer. The real problem with the Church of Scotland is that only one body can appoint a representative, and that probably from year to year. I will not weary your Lordships in that respect. I would repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Willis. for introducing this debate. I am grateful for the interesting speeches that have been made, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
6.20 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, if there were an immediate refutation of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, it would be the conduct of this debate which has produced a number of outstanding speeches, and an extraordinary variety of views. For once, I find myself largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, although it is a fairly rare experience despite my personal admiration for him. But I am grateful to him because I am 72 next month, and I would then have an immediate interest to declare in the proceedings of 1968.
Whatever wild oats I have sown verbally about this House in the past were under the inspiration of the future Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. For a long time now I have been a consistent advocate of a second Chamber. Those of us who have sat on Committees, even on the Nationalisation of Coal Committee, under the guidance of my noble friend, would know that in those major matters of legislation problems arise from day to day which need a revising Chamber. I recall that it is nearly twenty years since I addressed the Oldham Fabian Society on this subject with so much fervour. I defended so strongly those Members of the Labour Party who accepted a position in this House that they were flattering enough to express apprehension that I was about to depart there myself.
On the following day, as my number is not in the book, a representative of the News of the World came for the

1099
first time to express interest in one of my constituency speeches. I was immensely flattered, until he put his solitary question, which was whether it was true that I had been interrupted by a parrot in the course of my speech. I said I was not aware of the fact, but it appears to have been true, because in the next room there was an exceedingly gifted parrot who was entertaining the back row of my audience without my knowledge. If I may, I want at once to quarrel violently with one statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. If the noble Lord calls this House"the best club in the world ", in the sense of the provision it makes for its Members, I profoundly disagree. If he says it is one of the finest clubs in the world because of the excellence of the Members, because of their courtesy and friendliness, then I would not dissent.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, to be accurate, I said that it has been called the best club in the world.
LORD HALE: My Lords, and so has the House of Commons. When I was there first it was a particularly lousy place; it was not even clean. We dictated letters in the corridor and we got £600 a year.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: £400!
LORD HALE: That was before my time; £400 was in my noble friend's time, and with virtually no other privileges—no secretarial assistance, nowhere to put a secretary if you paid one yourself. The one facility we had was a locker. I do not really have a locker here, although I ought to confess I have a tin box in the bowels of the earth, with a noisy lock (it does not contain a shelf) full of the dust of ages which I ought to clean if I came in suitable dungarees. I never had a guaranteed chair to sit on anywhere. One noble Lord offered me the use of a drawer in his room in which to pile up papers, but he was tipped out of the room in a few weeks, although not because of my intrusion. The facilities are appalling.
In a curious way, the reform of the House of Lords is really nothing to do with us, if one means the reform of the Legislature in terms of the Act of
1100
1868. My noble friend was probably right in saying that in the end we do what we are told. It does seem to me there is real need for reform in this House. If I may venture to interpret what my noble friend Lord Willis was saying. One of the difficulties of this place is the frustration. Many people come here hoping to do something. We who came from another place have been cured a little of this hope. I can remember my first years in Parliament when we thought we were doing something; possibly we were doing something. We thought we lived under Parliamentary Government, which has not existed now for very many years. The main alteration that has taken place since I came into the House in 1945 is that it is very open to doubt as to whether we are now living under Cabinet Government, and whether power has not passed into the hands of multinational companies. The one residual power of the House of Commons was merely to defeat the Government, and there are almost overwhelming reasons why that would never happen except in the most remarkable and unforeseeable circumstances.
One noble Lord on the other side of the House (I forget who it was) talked about the lack of interest taken by some Hereditary Peers. Far too little interest is shown by Life Peers, too. If I were suggesting practical steps, I would suggest that whoever is responsible for Life Peers should secure an undertaking that they will try to perform some of the duties incumbent on them by the acceptance of the appointment in the circumstances in which a Life Peer is created. and the purpose for which a Life Peer was created. I have not been very good myself, and I am not holding myself up as an example. I am in the happy positon to-day that I can give evidence on my own behalf. I sat up till after midnight last night studying E.E.C. papers: I came here at 10 o'clock this morning. I attended a Committee for a couple of hours, with a Test Match on television next door (a considerable deprivation) and I shall be here in the Chamber till the end of the debate tonight. I shall go home with papers in my pocket.
My Lords, not only are we cheap, but we are cheap almost to the point of demeaning ourselves. From time to time we hear that a noble Lord can claim

1101
expenses up to £8·50 per day, but we do not hear that, if he attended every day he could, in claiming for every day he would receive £800 a year at the most to pay the considerable costs involved in attending this place. With regard to the functions of this House as a revising Chamber, let me remind your Lordships it is not so long since another place declared a State of Emergency, and then hopped off home for a three-month holiday the next day, leaving this House to continue for a fortnight doing the laborious and very boring work of revising many local government Bills, and indeed submitting to defeats.
May I correct one other thing that came from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, when he said something about Whips. If that means that the final decision comes from the Cabinet, as it does in the House of Commons, then I cannot dissent; but I do not think I have ever heard from a Whip since I have been in this House, except to receive each week a little useful information about the business and except to know that there is someone there to give advice when it is needed.
My Lords, there is another thing I should like to say. I think sometimes Members come here and are shown round the House and told to sit down without a little bit of information they need. One of the things they might be told is that the Officers of the House are constantly at their service; that they can go in virtually without an appointment, find an Officer of the House available and talk about the procedure, have explained to them any difficulties, be supplied with the rules and documents and indeed have matters drafted for them. I think there is a great lack of information, a disastrous lack of information.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell referred to the supply of documents. I would not dissent from what he said. But there is another type of documentation, the kind of thing that came to us in the House of Commons in dozens: the informed document from the interested society which provides its views for the Committee stage of Bills. Those are of immense service; one does not have to follow them or to believe in them. It is extremely difficult for an individual Member without a secretary to master the details of a complex Bill and take an effective part in Committee; and it is very hard on the
1102
Members of the Front Bench to conduct a barren series of revisions, to give the same assurances and receive the same undertakings, throughout the long day, without very much support from the rest of the House.
My Lords, this House has at its disposal an astonishing wealth of talent. At this moment we have three ex-Lord Chancellors, all of whom have treated me personally with so much kindness that even if it were presumptuous I could call them friends. They devote themselves consistently to work and the amount of work that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, does on his own subjects of law reform and indeed on other subjects is very considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to reporting in the Press. Nothing has given me greater pleasure than the fact that nobody ever reports a word of what I say; first, probably because I very rarely say anything worth reporting; and, secondly because every time I do I get landed with 15 or 16 very nice letters or very critical letters from very nice people who write on the slightest provocation, each of whom has the right to expect an answer, which I find an intolerable burden.
But there are limits to it, and we see The Times at the moment opening its columns to anxious criticism of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill on precisely the same grounds that were put at great length—not excessive length, but with great ability—in this House by experts. There was not anyone who listened to that discussion who did not realise that the Bill contained elements which demanded discussion and criticism and raised doubts in many minds, although we were in favour of it. It seems a little hard that we should get the criticisms when the facts and the debate and the arguments by the experts on either side never receive any publicity.
I should like to say one final word, if it is not impertinent. I think that Peers have a very rough time at the moment. I have the greatest sympathy with many hereditary Peers who take part in the affairs of this House because it is hardly possible now for a Peer to attract any publicity of any kind, if he wants to attract it, without committing a grave offence, or being kidnapped, or by adding a great auk to his private zoo—these

1103
seem to be the only grounds for a reference—while the new nobility, Miss England 1974, or Miss Namibia of 1973 or Miss Middle Wallop, can get ample publicity in most of the Press every time they change their décolleté. Times have changed, my Lords, and they will. There is one further solid point I want to make. If we remain in the Common Market there will be a very great need for the services of this House, and not only as a Revising Chamber, a considering Chamber, a debating Chamber—and I know it may be selfish of those of us who have been in the House of Commons.
Finally, I agree with the speaker who said that perhaps the admirable decorum of this House is a little excessive. The interplay and interchange of debate could at least take place between those who welcome it, and an occasional interruption, even an occasional disagreement, even something rather less than that—one or two of us who have sat in another place in rare moments of anger—might enliven the debate. These things stimulate thought and expression and I think they are valuable.
However, there is scope for Members of the House to take more advantage of the facilities which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has so well taken advantage of to-day, and which I notice he is making a habit of doing as he is to take advantage of it again, according to the Order Paper, in about a fortnight's time. There is a job for this House to do, so remarkably exemplified in the Report on leisure which we discussed last week and the work that Members of this House do on Select Committees, and in providing expertise in the Departmental and Select Committees which play such a part in the higher echelons of political thought.
6.38 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I rise with the greatest deference to address your Lordships on this matter. I do so only because I first took my seat in your Lordships' House 46 years ago, and I have seen considerable changes. The first of these changes which I noticed is the microphones, because in those days you really had to speak up or you just did not get heard. When I first joined your Lordships' House, I joined full of confidence and under the impression that I knew it all. It was quite a
1104
surprise to me to discover that many other noble Lords also knew it all, and in fact knew a good deal more about what I thought I knew all about. I also discovered all around me noble Lords who would discuss subjects of which I had not even heard. As a result, my education and my knowledge rapidly expanded.
I discovered something else, which I trust I learned to my betterment; the unfailing courtesy and help which all Members of your Lordships' House, and all the Officers and staff give to you, without which a newcomer would have the most extreme difficulty in getting about. But, even in those days. as the years went by one could see what was going to happen to this noble House. Due to the levelling up of the financial status of people, and also the levelling down of the financial status of people, it was becoming quite obvious that hereditary Peers would ultimately find it extremely hard to conduct the business of this House. In those days there were three things for which a young man had to have money; the first was to be in your Lordships' House, the second was to be in the Brigade of Guards, and the third was to be in a good cavalry regiment. As a result of this, a great impression was created that Members of your Lordships' House had lots of riches and were the most monumental snobs outside this House, and one tends to-day to get the impression from people outside that they still hold that opinion, however wrong it may be.
After various happenings, one of which I am glad none of your Lordships will ever have to undergo, and with the help of Hitler, there was a long gap in my attendance in your Lordships' House, and on my return I found things very different. The main thing which struck one at once was the fact that there was a tremendous revival by the Life Peerages Act. Looking back on those days, I feel that the Life Peerages Act really saved this House as an entity, and for its future. I think it was a splendid thing and, with all due deference to all noble Lords here, it injected considerable new life into the work of this House. When I look back at it, and see the noble Lords who are here. I realise that it injected into your Lordships' House a large number of people who came from completely dif-

1105
ferent strata of life, most strata of life which hereditary Peers were not in a position to attain and could never attain. It was of incredible value. I have had tremendous enjoyment out of your Lordships' House with the Life Peerages Act.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is not in his place, because I have enjoyed very much indeed going into the Lobby and voting on the same side as Manny Shinwell. When I first joined your Lordships' House in my youth, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, appeared to us who sat on the Tory side to be well-equipped with horns, hooves and pointed tails. They were the embodiment of the devil coming, with revolution in train. It is most enjoyable to sit here now and hear the noble Lord taking part in debates in your Lordships' House on many matters about which I thoroughly agree with him.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether he agrees that one of the characteristics of the Tory Party is that in order to retain their power they have, from generation to generation, to find some human beings and give them horns and tails and all the devilish qualities of evil? The noble Lord mentioned Lord Shinwell. It was Mr. Aneurin Bevan, and the current one, of course, is Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in a way, but I would not attach that only to the Tory Party. We get equal attitudes with the Labour Party; that the capitalist is consuming the worker on every side. But leaving that on one side for the moment, I feel that most noble Lords will agree that we must have a Second Chamber. The main advantage of this Chamber as it is, as has been pointed out by many speakers, is that all the Members can speak clearly and without hesitation on all the subjects in which they are expert and of which they have great knowledge. There is no looking over the shoulders, wondering what will happen at the next Election. They bring a great wealth of knowledge and talent.
Noble Lords complain of a built-in Tory majority. I can remember, when I first sat in your Lordships' House, a most splendid example of Tory majority.
1106
It was on a little Bill called the Rooks and Rabbits Bill, which proposed to give powers to certain gentlemen to go onto people's land to exterminate rooks and rabbits. In those days, your Lordships' House used to have an average attendance of between 70 and 90. Suddenly, the Rooks and Rabbits Bill came up for Second Reading and, instantaneously, we had something over 330. That was the built-in Tory majority of those days. You could not have it now to that extent.
I do not feel that your Lordships' House has very much chance of reform from outside—it is too touchy a matter politically—and if ever it came to the Second House being elected another place just would not stand it. But I must so agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, that while we have this House it has to be recognised that it is here, it has to be recognised that it has to do a job, and it has to be recognised as an integral part of the legislative machine of this country. Although we do not get so much notice as another place, I feel that Governments now and in the future would be most wrong to ignore us. I hope that the appointment of Life Peers will continue. It is most interesting, as a hereditary Peer, to watch them and see what effect they have on our excellent discussions, and whether they will reclaim us or develop us. I hope, too, that as many young hereditary Peers as possible will attend your Lordships' House. The introduction of young ideas is always a good thing. however much we may disagree with them. They are there to be thrown open for discussion, and I do not care what they are—they have a right to be heard. I hope that young hereditary Peers will turn up in greater numbers.
I shall end by saying that I have watched your Lordships' House evolving over the years. I feel that the quickest way to reform it is by evolution, and by discussion and thought about its workings as it evolves. We can probably reform ourselves far better from the knowledge of noble Lords in this House, than from the ideas of a lot of people who do not know how we operate.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow one who, on his own account, must be just about

1107
the Father of the House. At any rate, he has been here 46 years, besides which my mere 29 years is but as yesterday; so I am particularly pleased to follow him.
Like others, I am much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for his scintillating and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, very penetrating speech. He said some things about this House, and he said them in the best House of Lords style—in other words constructively, and not offensively. But he implied what is undoubtedly the weakness of this House in outside eyes, this tendency to self-satisfaction, to complacency. I do not think that anybody listening to this debate would deny that complacency was in short supply to-day, but there was tremendous satisfaction with the feeling that we were the best club, and the best assembly of human beings in the best of all possible worlds. That is our danger, along with our many attractions, which, like others, I have always enjoyed.
It is often very hard for any institution to criticise itself; the House of Commons is incapable of it, the B.M.A. is not much better, and I do not know whether the C.B.I., the T.U.C., or the teachers or anybody else are capable of criticising themselves. There seems to be something in human nature which makes is impossible. We are not very good, therefore, at criticising ourselves. But I should like to take the argument from where the noble Lord, Lord Willis, felt he had said enough for the day and sat down. He put the case for reform, but did not indicate the lines of reform.
I disagree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and one or two others who have implied that no agreed reform is possible. It is only a few years ago when agreed reform was going forward, and there was this strong consensus in favour of an agreed scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, of course had a great deal to do with that, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and myself on our side of the House, and on the other side the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. What it is relevant to remember is that when that scheme was agreed, it was agreed not only here, it was agreed with the Leaders of both sides in the House of Commons.
1108
It happened that at that time in the House of Commons the Leader was a certain Mr. Crossman, now much lamented, who had a passionate desire to see a rational Parliament: not just a rational House of Commons or, in our case, a rational House of Lords, but a rational Parliament. I am sure that if ever this House of Lords is reformed on rational lines—there is no point in reforming it on any other—it would be because there is a desire in both Houses to have a rational Parliament of two Chambers. It happened that there was a conjunction at that moment which may not come again very quickly, but there was that agreement.
The talks started when the matter was raised in the Cabinet on the Labour side, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, among his friends at the same time, and they went on for something like three years. They were defeated because of what was called the"unholy alliance"between Michael Foot and Mr. Enoch Powell, and people who felt like they felt in the House of Commons. In this matter alone I would call myself a rationalist, and I was concerned even before I became a Leader of this House to try to find a way to a rational Second Chamber, a rational House of Lords. It had always seemed to me that the greatest difficulty—and here I was in fact proved wrong in the event—would be to bring round the Conservative Peers who had such a vested interest, and still have, in the existing system, because under the existing system, with this tremendous hereditary vote, in the last resort they can prevail. So it was thought that there would be great difficulty in bringing them along and persuading them to adopt any reasonable reform. But in the event, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and others, there was agreement reached, so the difficulty in the end did not lie there.
On the other hand, I had expected rather more enthusiasm than in fact was available in the Labour Party for a basic reform of the structure. There was a good deal of support, and the more people went into it the more support there was. But, as was indicated by one or two speakers earlier—and we may have got a few undertones of it to-day—there are quite a number of Labour people who

1109
do not want to see a rational House of Lords because it would be too respectable and too influential. Incidentally, I would disagree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that if you have a rational House of Lords it is bound to have more authority. I think that the word"authority"is perhaps a little ambiguous. It could mean more power, which was not being suggested, or more influence. What we were concerned with was that the House of Lords should have more influence because its views were respected. If you are to produce a Chamber of that sort, it must be one placed on a rational basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said.
In the event, what really defeated reform was the attitude of the House of Commons. They did not want a rival; that is what it came to. I am not making any personal allusions of a derogatory kind, but if Mr. Crossman had still been Leader of the House of Commons when the crisis came things might not have turned out in quite that way. That was, and that always will be, a very considerable danger. There I disagree slightly with something that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, seemed to be arguing. He seemed to be saying that we would command the respect of the House of Commons if we were ourselves placed on a more rational or radical basis. Events do not suggest that, because the more reputable our basis the greater appears to be our prospect of influence. If the events of a few years ago are any guide, it is at that point that certain elements in the House of Commons are going to be very nervous.
Be that as it may, that was an agreed scheme. It was something that is not likely to be improved on, at any rate in any large measure. No doubt all sorts of details were arguable and could be altered. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will draw some encouragement from the fact that it was possible only a few years ago to reach this agreement in favour of reform. What was done then could be done again, but the circumstances were somewhat propitious, and, to say the very least, you would have to make sure that there were people in the House of Commons, leading figures, who wished to see Parliament as a whole reformed.
1110
Before I sit down, I should like to make one suggestion, because I do not expect to see reform come to-morrow by any manner of means. There is one point about our present arrangements which I think must cause a certain amount of anxiety. I do not want to pretend that anything remotely approaching a scandal has occurred but an enormous amount of patronage rests more or less in the hands of one man at any one time. I say"more or less"because various influences are brought to bear, and at any particular moment no doubt the Leader of the Opposition is listened to, as are others. But in fact I would say that when it comes to choosing the Peers—who are now all Life Peers, I am glad to say—this very arbitrary selection, as it is bound to be, depends on what is really the personal attitude towards many individuals of one particular man.
That is the suggestion. I am not criticising the present Prime Minister, the last Prime Minister, or any particular Prime Minister. If you go back a few years and take the Liberals, for a long time none of them was given a Life Peerage. I remember suggesting that Lady Bonham Carter should be made a Peeress long before she was made one. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, may remember that. At any rate, I made that suggestion. Why was she not made one? Because the Prime Minister of the day did not feel like it. It was not that her merits were less when she was not quite so old as when she eventually came here; it was some arbitrary attitude. If you go back to the days of Lord Attlee—whom I admire more than any man I have had dealings with in public life in this country—eminent people (they may not appeal to all noble Lords) like Mr. Victor Gollancz and Mr. Kingsley Martin, to take two eminent Socialists, never got further than knighthoods. The best that could be done for them was to give them a knighthood. No one is going to say that in capacity they were not equal to many who, like myself, have come to this House. I do not know whether they were not regarded as clubbable, or it may be they were thought to be erratic, or that they would cause difficulty in some way, but at any rate they were not chosen.
So without coming to the present day at all, when things become invidious, I am saying that over the years—I have

1111
not been here as long as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, but longer than most noble Lords who are now active in this House—I am well aware that there has been a very large arbitrary element of human likes and dislikes, which are the same among Prime Ministers as among ordinary mortals like ourselves.
There is a lot to be said for the way in which this matter was handled in the White Paper issued in November, 1968. May I point out that while I think it had the good will of the Opposition, it was issued by the Government of the day; in other words by the Cabinet presided over by Mr. Wilson. So whatever else one could say, one could not complain that it was criticism of our revered Prime Minister. The Labour Government of that time discussed in paragraph 31 of the White Paper the question of preventing what they called,"The abuse of patronage." I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will confirm the great deal of work that has been done on this subject. They considered withdrawing from the Prime Minister the power of nominating Peers, and giving it to some form of constitutional committee. But I think, on balance, and rightly, they did not favour that conclusion.
What they suggested was that the Government,
"…does however see attraction in the possibility of a committee which, while possessing no power of nomination, would review periodically the composition of the reformed House and report, either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament, on any deficiencies in the balance and range of the membership of the House ".
They finished that passage by saying:
" Its reports would enable Parliament and the country as a whole to satisfy themselves that the powers of patronage were not being abused."
That was one way of doing it, and it may be that other noble Lords will think of something better.
My Lords, I am sure that even if we cannot achieve some sort of fundamental reform—and I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, although I am one of Bluebeard's earlier wives and I have seen all this in my time—hope springs eternal and if the noble Lord, Lord Willis, gets anywhere I shall be shuffling behind him. Meanwhile, in considering secondary reforms I commend
1112
to the House the one I have just indicated.
7.3 p.m.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I should like to intervene for no more than five minutes to make three general points in defence of the presence of heredity in the House. My first point concerns the mode of thought in which objections to hereditary spring because this seems to me a mode of thought which is to be accepted automatically in the way many people would accept it. Everybody knows that the House works and so the objections to the hereditary element arise not so much through any practical necessity as on the grounds that the hereditary principle is irrational. Yet what is implied here, that rationality is a necessary guide to truth, does not hold water at all. Much spurious thinking is rational. It is easy enough to argue a spurious case rationally merely by selecting facts and arranging them in such a way as to suit the case you would like to preach. This is exactly what that great rationalist, Voltaire, did in his novel Candide. In his attempt to show that the omnipotent deity is not kind, Voltaire filled his novel with a series of unhappy events which succeeded one another with a rapidity which, in the ordinary course of life, would never happen.
My second point in defence of hereditary Peers is that those who deny the hereditary element in the House deny that the House as an institution can have any validity on a prescriptive basis, when it is so much in order to suppose that laws and institutions should have a prescriptive basis, particularly in England. All of our case law, and many of our institutions, apart from the House, have evolved to suit our practical needs rather than to fit in with any abstract system of thinking. In this way, as the great German legal historian Savigny showed, our laws and institutions suit us because they express the character of our people, whereas if you are like the French revolutionary who tried to reform our institutions with the idea of improving the society in which we live, you must fail, as the point at issue is the character of the men over whom the institutions are intended to govern. As we are all creatures of original sin this is something

1113
which any mere change in the form of Government cannot alter.
My third point concerns the role of heredity in the body politic at large, of which the House is but one part. So what I am about to say will be of an even more general character, although it was on this broad basis that our Garter King of Arms made his excellent defence of hereditary Peers in the current issue of Burke's Peerage. Moreover, the discredit into which hereditary has fallen in the House springs from the discredit into which hereditary has fallen in our society at large. The great rival to the hereditary principle of Government is the elective which, though it may not have obtained for so long since the fall of the Roman Empire, has obtained to an increasing extent since the 18th century.
However, as we are not yet a pure democracy, and there is still some hereditary preserved in our Constitution, it cannot be political heresy to point out one or two faults with the elective system of Government. Elected polititicians coax their voters by promoting economic growth and material progress which weaken all the old sentiments of loyalty and obedience. Elected politicians of the Left—and, it is the way of democracies to always move to the Left—promote equality of opportunity and a certain departure from moral standards. As these developments bring in their train a certain loosening of all the old ties, and introduce into our society so much movement, they put at great risk all the order and cohesion upon which the very existence of our society depends to the extent of suggesting that we have approached the end of our social reserves.
As economic crisis loomed over this country at the turn of the year, the author of The Times leader for December 31 put the problem in a way which was not too far removed from the form in which I stated it. The author said:
" One of the anxieties of the present time is that the cohesion of our society, under the impact of incessant technical change, moral disorientation and the deliberate obliteration of physical and institutional landmarks, is so far weakened, and vulnerable to revolutionary designs, that it may not be able to withstand the economic stresses about to be put on it—although the probable stresses, assessed in the perspective of history, are not all that severe."
1114
The trend is a dangerous one which must be reversed. A religious revival would help. At about the turn of the year, Harold Macmillan said that there is not enough religion around. I do not think it would be too bold to suggest that a renewal of the hereditary principle would also go far towards reversing the trend. It would restore the significance historically, if the hereditary principle performed the role of ensuring all the better that we hold together.
LORD HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening on that point, because it was never a principle? Professor Freeman devoted many years to proving that it was a historical accident. It was Disraeli who said that after the Battle of Tewkesbury,
" the Norman Baron was as rare in Britain as a wolf ".
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and as I spoke about the prescriptive basis what he said was very much in order. I was saying that, historically, the hereditary principle, or the existence of it, and its acknowledgment, has performed exactly this role of ensuring all the better that we hold together. In the article which I mentioned for Burke's Peerage, our Garter King of Arms mooted
"…that the hereditary principle expressed in loyalty to dynasties, lords and kindred "
has done
" almost as much as belief in God and the fealty of the vassal to lord to rebuild European civilisation after the fall of the Roman Empire."
If order and stability are to be re-established in our society to-day, then I think a revival of respect for the hereditary principle would go far to renew the significance of the family which, weakened though it may be by liberal laws on divorce and inheritance, has remained the most important of all the obligations out of which our society has been built. If, on the grounds that I have indicated, the smear and discredit could be removed from the acknowledgment of heredity, then I do not think that the presence of heredity in an Upper Chamber would seem so very incongruous or remote from the conditions of the present time, antiquated, any more than it did to our not too remote ancestors. Moreover, if heredity can be preserved in the House,

1115
then the House, like the Monarchy, can remain within the Constitution as a fixed point and an essential counterweight to all the movement and disintegration which has been introduced through the increasing ascendency of the elected element.
Let me conclude, therefore, by deploring the fact that the practice of creating any more hereditary Peers has been allowed surreptitiously to lapse. In seeking in this way to erode the element of heredity in the Legislature, the leaders of both Parties must be convicted of assuming a power over the Constitution such as would never have been taken for granted by any previous Minister of the Crown.
7.11 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, this is the second Unstarred Question in the course of a few weeks on which I have attended the debate to listen to one speech and have then been provoked to speak. The previous occasion was on Northern Ireland, and when I came in at that time it was as if I was attending a private session of the Conservative Party, and I thought it was necessary, in the interests of democracy, to inject just a little common sense into the proceedings. I came this evening to listen to my noble and very genuine friend—a friend not just in the political sense but in a very real sense—Lord Shinwell; but having heard the debate, I must say I have never listened to such unmitigated nonsense as has been talked to-night. The last speaker, in a most erudite speech, elevated the hereditary principle into something almost descended from God, tied up with the fabric of the State, and so on and so forth. What is the truth? This place has existed down the centuries to preserve the privileges of a very small section of the community. It has existed to preserve the privileges and the rights of, and to give a comfortable way of life to, a very few people, irrespective of their ability.
My views about the hereditary principle were punctured by a member of the aristocracy. I was a young N.C.O. at the time, stationed in York, where there was a by-election. It was at that by-election, although my noble friend will not recollect it, that, at the Co-operative Rooms I met him for the first time. I went along and listened to a lady, I think
1116
now dead, named Lady Maureen Stanley. She was speaking on behalf of her kinsman. This was in the 'thirties, when Britain was moving into the abyss, with 2 million unemployed, great economic crises, destitution and poverty all over the land and the certainty of a European war. What was Lady Maureen Stanley's speech? It was on a Tuesday night. Why do I know it was a Tuesday night? Because the Two Thousand Guineas is run on a Wednesday, and her message was about the Two Thousand Guineas. She said:"Your Conservative candidate has been bred for politics, and, just as to-morrow a gallant three-year-old will storm up the hill to the winning post at Newmarket, bred for the job, so is your Conservative candidate here bred for politics". He got elected, and he rose to a high position in the State.
But I knew not so much about politics, perhaps, as I knew about racing. This is absolute trash. The idea that you can cross a top-class stallion with a top-class mare and that the product is going to win the Derby and the Two Thousand Guineas is rubbish. The great horses are like the great men: they have been sired or mothered on the other side of the blanket. That is what matters: it is the rough blood outside. On the question of examining genealogical tables, I find, as a matter of fact, that way back down the line I have as much claim to the glories of breeding from that angle as anybody else.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I just mention that if he looks at the Dictionary of National Biography he will find that the only profession in which, as a whole, the distinguished sons do not follow on their distinguished fathers is acting. This is an observation I picked up from a reading of Havelock Ellis's book on Hereditary Genius.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord—
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I intervene? Was it not Galton's book on Hereditary Genius?
LORD WIGG: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I am not going to get involved in quoting from or discussing books I have not read. Ruff's Guide to the Turf is good enough for me, and

1117
the idea that a Derby winner and an Oaks winner, if crossed, will produce a classic winner I know to be nonsense. It has happened once; and, going back to the 'thirties, the period of which I have been talking, I knew Lady Maureen Stanley was talking rubbish. This is what I think, too, when I listen to speakers from all sides of the House talking about the qualities of this place. I have been here only seven years—seven years too long! If I have to listen, as I have had to listen to-night, to the House of Commons being denigrated and the electorate described as"riff-raff ", I reject it. The one thing in my life of which I am most proud—no honour can excel it; no honour conferred by the Sovereign equals it—is that of being elected to the House of Commons by people you trust, people you get to know and people you try to serve. I am very proud of the fact that on seven occasions, starting by winning a Conservative scat, I held it against all comers.
The idea is that there is some superiority about this place as against the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons has not sought to reform itself. It has—and too much. The Back-Bench Member of the House of Commons has given away power to the Executive. But this place; this contemptible institution! On the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill I made a speech. I said I had read all the spokesmen on behalf of this place, and the arguments which convinced me were that it was a delaying Chamber; it was a revising Chamber; it was a Chamber which, when great decisions were to be taken—decisions which, in the case of the Common Market, may be irrevocable—could hold the matter up so that there could he consultation with the people. I went on to say:"The arguments that are given to us are that we must get into Europe because only by getting into Europe shall we get the investment into Britain that is necessary to revivify and strengthen our industries ". I ventured to say:"This is a marvellous argument. It almost convinces me. The only thing is, I am not sure about it. Suppose that, instead of the investment flowing from the Continent into Britain, it flows from Britain to the Continent. If we have then given away out a secretary to master the details of a complex Bill and take an effective part all the humbug that has been talked from
1118
all Benches about it being a delaying Chamber—what is going to happen? "
Who was right? Was it the experts; the sophisticated, erudite, financial genii who had come down from the City; the chairmen of companies? Or was it the poor, backroom rat? I was right. When that Bill was passed, we were almost in balance with the E.E.C. The next year, our adverse balance was £500 million. Last year, it was £1,000 million. This year it will not be less than £1,600 million. And those who are responsible and are going to be held to account for it are the Members of your Lordships' House. I am in your Lordships' House for one reason and one reason only, and that is to be present on the Third Reading of a Bill which abolishes you. Because you have betrayed your trust. You could have held up that Bill. You could have said to the Government,"Yes£after you have consulted the people ". But, as always, this House, or the majority of this House, served what it thought were its class interests. Those who suffered were the people of this country. That is the truth. The fact is that there are two aspects of your Lordships' affairs. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, talked about the reform that was held up by people whom I think he regards as having a tail and horns.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that, I thought, was one of the silliest remarks that I have heard for a long time. But I may have misheard that remark. Did the noble Lord say that I regard these people who held it up as having tails?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I thought his mood was somewhat disapproving. May I put it like that? From their point of view, they did their duty as they saw it, but that was a reform associated with the power of this House. What is within your Lordships' control, next week if you desire, is to turn this place into something that is less like a debating Chamber, and something like a place that is occupied by rational men. One needs to go no further than the first Question on the Order Paper to-day, which was:
" To ask Her Majesty's Government how they would ensure that the British people had enough to eat if the United Kingdom left the E.E.C."

1119
If Questions are asked they should have some semblance of responsibility, some reference to it. Here there is none. Any noble Lord can put on the Order Paper any collection of nonsense he desires. Not so in the other place. They are governed by Rules of Order which here we do not have, though we have a Companion. However, I notice that the application of the Companion varies according to what may be the views of the House about a particular individual. I have constantly drawn attention to the fact that it is laid down fairly strictly that there should be no reading of speeches. Heavens above!—reading of speeches. You even get Members of this House reading their supplementary questions!
Then, again, there is the question of the Business of the House. How is it arranged? It is arranged between the Whips on either side. Neither set of Whips is competent. One of the easiest reforms to institute—and, again, it could be done next week—is that the House can insist that the Business of the House is controlled by the servants of the House. I would go so far as to say that we ought to have the equivalent of Mr. Speaker. We ought to have a Chairman. We ought to have simple Rules. Even a debating society has some sort of rules and makes some attempt to keep in order. There is some degree of responsibility and relevance. Here there is none. These things could be done. I shall not detain your Lordships for a moment longer.
The only reform of the House of Lords that I want is to abolish it. It has served this country ill. It has served an undeserving upper class very well. It has served them for too long. Off with their heads! I think so much of this House that only in the last few weeks I went to the Clerk of the Parliaments to find out whether there was any way by which I could renounce my Peerage. I do not want to be here. I do not like being here. I think it is a load of nonsense. On the issue of the Common Market, this House has behaved as if it were a fifth column. It has surrendered the sovereignty of the British people to those who did not conquer it. The sovereignty of the British people has been given away, and that could not
1120
have been given away without the permission of this House. For that reason, the quicker it ends the better.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord envisage that he has come to the House for the purpose of subverting it?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if the noble Lord feels as he does there is no need to renounce his Peerage. He can apply for leave of absence. I think that after the words he has spoken, especially calling this place a"contemptible institution"he should first explain to us why he ever accepted to come here, and secondly, why he bothers to come to this House as often as he does. We like to see him on the other hand, may I assure him, and we value his views, especially on matters of the turf. We find that very entertaining and I hope he will continue to come, but I hope that he will see that we are not quite as black as he tries to paint us.
LORD WIGG: I used the word"contemptible"and I do not withdraw that word in relation to this House and the Common Market. Because it has been said and has been repeated so often by the leadership—particularly of the Conservative Party—that there is a need for a revising Chamber. Above all, in all the arguments about the abrogation of the power of this House it has always been argued that in the interests of freedom and democracy, there must be a delaying power. I accepted that but realised it was humbug,and when men practice humbug their action is contemptible. On the subject of why I came I have already explained. I came because Mr. Wilson asked me, and having agreed to come I do a job, and do it as best I can on the issues on which I have something to say. But my ultimate purpose is to come here only to finish it off.
7.26 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and lively debate. I expected it to be lively, but I did not think it was going to be quite so lively as the speech of my noble friend—if he calls himself my noble friend—Lord Wigg, which I may say is one of the most extraordinary and offensive speeches I have ever heard in this House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Willis for putting down this Question. It is probably time that we had a debate on this subject. I have listened to his speech with the greatest of interest. There is one matter, though, that is not really to do with reform, and that is when he complained about the number of Ministers here. It does not mean how this in any Government is a matter for the Prime Minister. The reform of the House of Lords in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of most people, means the composition of your Lordships' House and it means the powers of the House. It does not mean the number of Ministers here. It does not mean how much Press coverage or television coverage we get. Indeed, even the matter of the Speaker, which was put forward by my noble friend Lord Wigg, is a matter for the Procedure Committee and is nothing to do with the reform of the House.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point may I ask him this question? I specifically linked the number of Ministers on the Front Bench with the lack of reform of the House. I made the point that if the Government intend to do nothing about this place, at least it could do one thing and see that we have adequate Ministerial forces to cover all the subjects and all the work. I suggested that there should be representations made to that effect. I see no inconsistency in that. If the Government intend to do nothing let us have the forces to do our work.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I take the point, of course, that the noble Lord has made. He also paid a tribute to the work done by the Lords in Waiting and the Whips, but he implied that there was not much rapport between them and the Departments. I should say that my noble friends spend every morning in the relevant Department of the subject for which they are responsible and they have the very closest association with the Departments.
The noble Lord also said that so far as reform is concerned he did not think that we had moved forward one inch. On the other hand, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said that he thought that reform was going on all the time. Since I have been here I have
1122
considered it a great privilege and pleasure. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, thinks that seven years is too long. I have been here for twenty years and I have enjoyed it enormously. Of course that is not as long as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Denham, but during this period I have indeed, as I think has any noble Lord who has been here a good deal of time, seen a great many changes.
I should like, therefore, to pause for a moment and take the opportunity of looking back to see what improvements have been made since the Second World War. During that period, for example, there have been a number of changes in the powers and constitution of your Lordships' House. The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the period of delay which your Lordships could impose on public Bills. Then there was an important change in the constitution of this House made by the Life Peerages Act 1958, which everyone would agree has introduced into our debates a valuable new element of thought and opinion. I was very interested in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I fully agree with him that the Life Peers have really saved the day. I was also glad to hear the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Shinwell—I must say I never thought I should hear such a tribute—to the hereditary Peers. I do not think he went quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, who believes in the hereditary Peerage as a kind of mystique; but all the same, it was an unexpected and, I am sure, not an undeserved tribute. A further change has been the opportunity for members of the hereditary Peerage to give up their titles if they preferred to remain commoners or, indeed, to become Members of another place. I think that the element of cross-fertilisation which has resulted from these two measures has significantly improved and smoothed the conduct of our public affairs.
I include in the march of events one episode which at first sight might seem to have little to show in relation to the work put in: I refer to the Government's White Paper of 1968 and the Bill which followed it. That Bill produced little or nothing in the way of immediate results, but a great deal of work lay in the

1123
too when I listen to speakers from all efforts of the inter-Party conference; and I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to my noble friends on this side of the House, particularly my noble friends Lord Shackle-ton and Lord Longford, who were closely involved. I have no doubt their efforts brought a greater appreciation of the issues involved, not only at the fundamental constitutional levels but also at the more practical levels of procedural reform. The Bill which would have implemented the proposals in the Government's White Paper of course made no progress—and this was referred to in the debate—probably because of the rather unexpected alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, as was so well described by my noble friend Lord Willis.
However, there have been certain other reforms since then. For example, there has been the experiment of introducing a Special Committee procedure for dealing with public Bills; and a more specific change was the introduction of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which removes unnecessary duplication, minimises a possible source of friction and represents a real step forward in the scrutiny of delegated legislation. There was also a suggestion for the greater use of specialist committees. This resulted in the setting up of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Hale. We have also introduced the short Wednesday debates, which I think give a further opportunity for many debates of general public interest though perhaps not considered of wide enough interest for a full debate. I suggest to your Lordships that all these developments represent very real progress.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Does he not agree that, starting off with the Parliament Act 1949, the Life Peerages Act and so on, all these measures were imposed from outside? This House has never really seriously seized a chance even to bring its own procedures up to date in the light of common sense. The rest of it, since the Parliament Act 1911, has been imposed from outside.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, all I can say is that this House, by a large
1124
majority, voted for the White Paper. The fact that the Bill resulting from that White Paper was not passed by the other place was not the fault of this House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WIGG: My Lords, nobody is suggesting that it is their fault—except that anybody who wants to get a rational House of Lords, responsive to the needs of the country at this present time, will most certainly be very glad that that Bill was not passed.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may i point out to the noble Lord, who I am glad to see has just resumed his seat, that one of the procedures of this House is that you do not normally speak in a debate unless you have put your name on the list. You do not usually speak otherwise unless there is a very good reason for it.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, on that point, if I may say so, I will adhere to the Rules when everybody else adheres to them. I have added my name and spoken to-night only because I understand that that is the practice. That is exactly what I complain of. I am not popular here and I do not want to be popular here, but because I am not popular here an excuse is made to try to prevent my speaking. That is exactly what I complain about regarding this place.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, whether the noble Lord has complaints or not is a question for the Procedure Committee. It has nothing to do with the reform of your Lordships' House.
LORD WIGG: Of course it has my Lords!
LORD STRABOLGI: Whether the noble Lord appears at the bottom of the paper because he has not come in at the beginning of the debate, or whether he appears where he thinks he should be—rather higher up—has nothing to do with the reform of your Lordships' House.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, of course it has.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the question of a chairman is also a matter for the Procedure Committee to consider and for the House as a whole to accept. Returning again to the speech of my noble friend Lord Willis, he urged us to

1125
move faster and faster. The Government's answer to that is that whatever the wider issues involved, this is not the time to look at fundamental House of Lords reform in isolation—and I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. The fact is that we are going through a period of constitutional change and review, for which no parallel can be found during some considerable time. This is taking place at all levels of our Constitution. We have just completed the most fundamental reorganisation of the country's system of local government for a century. But this is only a beginning. There are two other developments which will very materially affect the Government's judgment about when the time will be right for further Lords reform.
The first of these is the outcome of the current consultations on the Reports of the Commission on the Constitution—the majority Kilbrandon Report and the Memorandum of Dissent. We have, of course, published some alternatives for discussion on devolution within the United Kingdom, and some of these alternatives would involve changes of the greatest constitutional importance—changes in the relationship between different parts of the United Kingdom, the setting up of new regional governments and of new regional assemblies, and, of course, changes in the role of the Legislature itself at Westminster. Indeed, in one case, it may involve changes in the membership of your Lordships' House. The next step will be for the Government to decide, in the light of these consultations, what proposals to put forward. Clearly, the role of your Lordships' House will need to be considered in this context.
The second factor which, among others, will affect our judgment on the timing of reform is the outcome of the renegotiation now in progress in Brussels and, if we are to stay in Europe, the question of those who are chosen to represent the United Kingdom in the European Parliament. At present, of course, certain of your Lordships serve in that Parliament and we shall need to consider to what extent that should be a permanent feature of the arrangements. So let me return to the proposal that interim measures should be introduced to help
1126
those who work in your Lordships' House to fulfil their Parliamentary function. I recall the debate that we had on May 15 on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich referred to the consultations that were taking place on the help which might be given to Opposition Parties to assist them in the performance of their Parliamentary duties.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Do I understand that my noble friend is saying that this is the concept of what is meant by reform? These are pettyfogging changes which are no doubt desirable; but is this the definition of reform?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is one of the reforms to which I referred. The whole question of reform—and I do not know whether my noble friend was listening; probably he was not—I thought should be dealt with not in isolation, but as part of the whole concept of devolution and of our evolving society—
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, when did the Government decide on what my noble friend has just been announcing to your Lordships? Has it been decided since my noble friend Lord Willis put his Question on the Order Paper? Is my noble friend Lord Strabolgi aware that none of us—and some of us are fairly well informed—has heard a single whisper about these matters? The Government have come to no conclusion about this. The matter has never been considered at all, in the Cabinet or elsewhere.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend speaks for what goes on in the Cabinet; I certainly do not. But I should like to refer him to the White Paper on devolution within the United Kingdom and my information—and, indeed, my brief—is that this will be considered, and the whole concept of House of Lords reform will be considered alongside this White Paper when some proposals are put before Parliament on these lines. These consultations have embraced the Parties in both Houses, and so when in due course—before very long, I hope—the Government come to frame their proposals in

1127
this connection, they will be fully seized of the needs of Opposition Parties in your Lordships' House as well as in another place.
My Lords, I am sorry to have spoken at some length, but I hope that what I have said may give some indication of the Government's present attitude to this matter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he is aware that every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate is still in his place; and is this not a reform that is well overdue?

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
  CRIMES OF VIOLENCE: STATISTICS
  CRIMES OF VIOLENCE: STATISTICS