Sitting of 10 December 1975

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

TRADE
Address for Return,
of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1976.—[Mr. Deakins.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received expressing concern about the present method of allocation of the needs element of the rate support grant among district councils; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Representations have been made that greater needs of some districts compared with others should be taken into account in the distribution formula. There is no easy solution to this problem, but I have undertaken to have it fully examined before the grant settlement next year.
    Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that district councils in the Strathclyde Region think that the total amount allocated to them is too small and that the distribution between districts is wrongly based on straight per capita grants instead of on needs? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will look again at the formula so that the needs element once more becomes what it should be—namely, a part of the rate support grant that is given to areas because of need? Will he take into account the feelings expressed in the report prepared
    432
    by the Strathclyde District Councils' Association?
    Mr. Ross: I think that that was the implication of what I said. I realise that there are considerable feelings about this matter. One of the difficulties is that even within districts of virtually the same make-up one gets variations of expenditure. What we have to be able to do in respect of the needs formula is to isolate needs that are national, that are countrywide. The problem has so far defied the working party and the local authority officials concerned—there is no agreement amongst them—but I have made a pledge that we shall deal with it with vigour during the coming year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the ratepayers who have been hammered most this year are those who lived in the former county districts but who now find themselves in city districts, where rates have risen by more than 300 per cent.? In discussing the distribution formula, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the problem of these people, who do not necessarily have all the advantages of the services that are available in the cities and yet have to pay these high rates? The transitional arrangements have not so far fully taken into account the heavy financial burdens that they have to face.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that one of the basic philosophies behind local government reorganisation, for which his Government and not the Labour Government were responsible, was the assimilation of town and country, and that whereas they had previously paid different rates they were in future to be subject to a single rate. The hon. Gentleman should know from his experience the considerable difficulty of finding a formula that meets all the requirements and defines needs and meets them. It is very much easier to do this on a regional basis where one is dealing with services such as education, social work, and so on, and some of these services carry over into districts, too.
    Let the hon. Gentleman not suggest that there are easy solutions. He must know that there are not. If he reads properly the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire

    433
    (Mr. Lambie) and the Strathclyde District Council, he will see that they are arguing that within this form of distribution the advantage goes to the landward areas.
    Mr. Lambie: To the Tory areas.
    Mrs. Bain: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many councils will be delighted to hear that he is finally getting round to considering the needs allowance of the various districts? Will he bear in mind the varying responsibilities of district authorities and the services that they provide? Will he accept that if he does not come up with a formula, the ratepayers of Scotland will find it as outrageous as the fact that they are denied the rate support grant given to England and Wales?
    Mr. Ross: It is typical of the hon. Lady that she allows her prejudices to take wing and is never disturbed by the facts. She fails to mention that provision was made for that. [Interruption.] We do not see much of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) nowadays. I would be grateful if, on the occasions when she is here, she would listen rather than interrupt. The fact is that this is not an easy problem. As I said in my original reply, there are districts which are virtually the same but in which the expenditures are very different. The expenditure may not be related to needs. It may be related to decisions taken by and in the discretion of the authority concerned, and it would not be right always to support it to the extent of 74 per cent.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry.
    The Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): A meeting was held with representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry on 23rd October and further discussions took place on 5th December with the Scottish fishing industry. There are no plans at present for another meeting.
    Mr. Sproat: I am grateful for the close watch that the hon. Gentleman keeps on the industry. Did he take away from that last meeting an understanding of the deep
    434
    concern that the industry now feels on two matters in particular? The first is that nothing whatsoever appears to be happening with regard to the common fisheries policy. Will he urge the Secretary of State to go to Brussels himself to start to get some action on this subject at last? Secondly, did the fishermen put to him their deep concern about the fuel oil costs, which could add another £800,000 a year to the Scottish Trawlers' Federation's burden when it is already losing a lot of money? If some subsidy is not continued, we shall see 25 per cent. of the fleet tied up again next year.
    Mr. Brown: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's final point at this stage. Yes, I share the deep concern. On Friday the representatives submitted facts and figures to me as they saw them. We are examining them and we shall obviously consider the implications of their case. It is not true that nothing has been done about the CFP. We expect to begin further discussions shortly on the basis of proposals being produced by the Commission and initiated, I might add, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, action is proceeding and I should have thought that, within the next few weeks or months, there would be visible evidence of it.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government appreciate that the presence of the Secretary of State in Brussels may be necessary at some appropriate time. We are not reluctant to attach to fishing the importance that it deserves.

    Killearn Hospital
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about proposals for the use of the former Killearn Hospital.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Killearn Hospital is no longer required for Health Service purposes. Negotiations are proceeding with the Central Regional Council, which wishes to purchase the site, and at a meeting on 25th November agreement was reached on the form of a revised offer which has now to be considered by the council.
    Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend for getting some action on this matter. Is he aware that I recently visited the

    435
    site of the former hospital in Killearn, which has now been lying derelict for about three years? Does he agree with me that it is a disgrace that such valuable public property, including houses and other expensive residential accommodation, should be lying vacant for such a prolonged period? Will he investigate the possibility of using the property for some educational or recreational purpose?
    Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend has been most assiduous in pressing this matter, as he is in all matters concerning his constituency. I can give him the assurance that I shall try to bring the matter to an early conclusion.

    Rates
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average rates paid per household, expressed as a sum per calendar month, in the current rating year; and what were the comparable figures per month in each of the previous three years.
    Mr. William Ross: For 1975–76 the average monthly rate bill per household in Scotland is estimated at just over £10, compared with £6·90 in 1974–75, £5·90 in 1973–74 and £5·50 in 1972–73.
    Mr. Taylor: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed to report figures which show that the rates burden per household per month has increased by about half in 12 months, particularly when part of the reason is his abysmal failure to negotiate and obtain from the Treasury an interim relief scheme for Scottish ratepayers? Does he not agree that next year will be another serious rating year for Scotland because of his reduction of the percentage rates of grant, unless this is accompanied by a comparable reduction in expenditure by local councils? Will he therefore consider fixing a maximum percentage increase for rates by each local authority?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is impossible—
    Mr. Taylor: That is the counsel of despair.
    Mr. Ross: It is not the counsel of despair: it is facing the facts of the statutory obligations placed on me and on
    436
    local authorities. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Government at the time, but it was his Government that introduced the reorganisation Act and he was one of those who, during the General Election in October 1974, raced around in a car labelled "Freedom" campaigning for freedom to local authorities. Now he is asking me to take over the whole task of controlling—
    Mr. Taylor: In an emergency.
    Mr. Ross: That is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it—
    Mr. Taylor: No, it is not.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is intolerable, when a Minister is answering, to have constant sedentary interruptions.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows that that point is just outwith practicability.
    The hon. Gentleman will know from answers already given that the Scottish local authorities turned down an interim relief scheme because it would have been unfair to those faced with the highest rate poundages in Scotland. He must not omit the fact that if reorganisation costs more money, he should have been concerned about it before in relation to some of the local authority set-ups which were created.
    The hon. Gentleman must also appreciate that services must be paid for and that local government services are labour intensive. I do not remember any Conservative Member, among those who are now screaming about the bills coming home, saying anything when we were dealing with the local authority workers, teachers and all those others who received increases. It all has to be paid for and they should face up to it. Those people who led marches demanding even more for some local authority workers should not run away from the responsibility now.
    Mr. David Steel: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept as a fact that the shift in the balance of the rate support grant from rural to urban areas, combined, as it happened, with the cost of reorganisation, has led to rates increases well above the forecast 25 per cent. in certain areas of Scotland? Will he take these factors into account when calculating this next year?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, but I do not think that it was that factor which led to the increase above the 25 per cent. I have said before that there has been over-budgeting by Scottish local authorities. I have constantly tried to bring that over-budgeting to their attention and have said that, because they are gathering in this money, that does not mean that they should spend it. By reasonable prudence, they should be able to build up a considerable cushion for next year. As for the transitional payment, we made provision to some extent last year and 50 per cent. of that is carrying on into this year.
    Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a serious injustice is done to some people in rural areas who do not get sewerage and garbage disposal services and who have to pay for them privately? Is there any action that he can take, short of new legislation, at least to eradicate that injustice to a fair number of people?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must appreciate that this is a matter which was dealt with in the legislation itself. These things were covered in the old days with the designation of "special districts", but those are now out. One must consider the services provided by local authorities all over the country. For instance, many people who have no children pay for education. There is a complex sort of cross-subsidy of individuals and their needs in local government expenditure and we must bear that in mind.
    Mr. MacCormick: Does not the Secretary of State agree, to use the highly charged, emotive language customarily used by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), that it is "scandalous and shocking" for Conservative Members to complain about what has happened to the rates when they were chiefly responsible for the reform of local government? But would he not further agree that it is also "scandalous and shocking" that, in the preparation of the White Paper, the possibility of the early abolition of the regional tier of local government by a Scottish Assembly was ruled out?
    Mr. Ross: We all appreciate that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) lives in a constant aura of indignation. Long may that continue. The
    438
    hon. Gentleman's last question is not entirely related to this aspect. We shall be debating the White Paper, I hope, soon after we return in the new year.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to moderate the effects upon the levels of rates which will be levied on domestic ratepayers at the operation of the first full year after the reorganisation of local government.
    Mr. William Ross: I am proposing an increase in the domestic element of rate support grant to 27 pence in 1976–77. The total grant proposed for 1976–77 is over £800 million. It is now up to the local authorities to do their part by halting the rise of expenditure.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that encouraging reply. Will he remember that there are thousands of people who simply cannot meet the increased rate demand? Will he continue to encourage local authorities to curb their expenditure? Will the Government also take a lead in this important matter of public spending?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate support grant per head of population is now 50 per cent. higher in Scotland than in other areas of the United Kingdom? Does not this confirm the considerable extent to which Scottish ratepayers are being assisted out of central taxation?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Secretary of State accept that local government reorganisation has literally destroyed the present rating system? What can he do to curb the monster that the Labour and Conservative Parties have created by reorganisation? For example, what could he say to the Glasgow District Council, which is apparently spending £900 to bring English primary school children to Scotland, when all they asked for was travel brochures to allow them to complete a school project? Is that what the

    439
    right hon. Gentleman meant when he called for "reasonable prudence" by local authorities?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the leader of his party did not vote against the monster of local government reorganisation. Therefore, his party must accept its responsibility. The financing of local government has concerned me for a long time. The previous Conservative Government produced a Green Paper in 1971 on the radical reform of local government finance. It came to nothing. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would give a much better lead in behaviour to his hon. Friends. We have established the Layfield Committee, and we should await the findings of that Committee about financial changes.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I prefer to hear points of order at the end of Question Time.

    School Leaving Age
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to enable pupils to leave school on their 16th birthday.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made on the review of the school-leaving age; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McElhone: Leaving on the 16th birthday is one of many proposals put forward during the review of the present system of fixed school leaving dates. I am considering the implications of the various courses of action that have been suggested and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the early part of the new year. The review is not concerned with the school leaving age itself.
    Mr. Steel: At the risk of entering into an aura of indignation, may I ask why the devil this review is taking so long?
    Mr. McElhone: This is very complex and the representations that have been put forward are many and varied. The hon. Gentleman must remember that legislation will be required, and that that has also to be considered.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that two young people in my constituency were offered attractive employment on 1st December and that they were unable to accept that employment because they still had three weeks' schooling to do, as they do not leave school until 23rd December? Come what may, they will leave on 23rd December. In those circumstances, cannot my hon. Friend introduce some degree of flexibility into the school-leaving date, so that individuals in areas such as mine, which have a high rate of unemployment, can take advantage of these first-class opportunities?
    Mr. McElhone: I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) although I do not uphold his support for truancy by these two young people. The idea of allowing school children to leave school on their 16th birthday was supported by several of the bodies that made representations. On the other hand, a number of other bodies opposed it. There are good reasons why we should consider all these proposals before coming to a decision. The views of my hon. Friend will be considered. He must also remember that there will be hard cases whatever dividing line is drawn. This is always a difficulty when we are drawing up legislation. I shall take account of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister realise that 16-year-old pupils at Mary Erskine School in Edinburgh are uncertain about their future? Will he confirm that the Government have decided to refuse the Lothian Education Committee permission to buy that school? Will he explain to the House how we can reconcile that with the Government's decision on grantaided schools?
    Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) should not take advantage of his Front Bench position to pre-empt the answer that I shall give to his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. West (Lord lames Douglas-Hamilton).

    School Transport
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to make a statement on the report

    441
    of the Working Party on School Transport set up in 1972.
    Mr. McElhone: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on Monday 8th December.
    Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that some hints have come my way that the recommendations contain many proposals that I do not like? Is he also aware that I have always advocated that free school transport should be our objective? Is the recommendation that all school children should pay a flat-rate fare regardless of distance from the school likely to be implemented? If so, it will be vigorously resisted by my constituents.
    Mr. McElhone: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. He has raised it before in the House. Free transport beyond a certain distance and discretion to provide free transport have always been matters for local authorities, prior to any change in the legislation. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be fine in an ideal world in which no financial stringencies were operating. At the same time, we must bear in mind that any plan such as that would also involve a cost on the rates and would have to be taken into account in calculating the new rate support grant.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister aware that there are still great anomalies within the regions, which were to a certain extent expected to unify transport conditions in their areas, and that many people are sick to the back teeth of having weak excuses from the Government, who seem to have a strange set of priorities?
    Mr. William Ross: Nonsense!
    Mr. McElhone: I echo the comment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Consultations are now in progress. We must also have regard to the number of Members who have written to us expressing concern about any possible changes. Local authorities have expressed to me informally the idea that this change should not take place. Therefore, there are varying views on the matter. We are considering them. When the Bill is published, the hon. Lady will have the option of voting for or against us.

    Devolution
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the White Paper on Devolution.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Nine letters have been received commenting on various aspects of the Government's proposals for devolution.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister appreciate that although we believe that the White Paper is right to provide a right of review over the decisions of the Assembly, we find it intolerable that this right should be given not to the elected House of Commons but to the appointed Secretary of State? We believe this view to be intolerable—even if that office were to be occupied by such a benign and impartial gentleman as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
    Mr. Harry Ewing: In replying to that benign and impartial supplementary question, let me say that these matters are for discussion in the debates that will take place between now and the publication of the legislation. I hope that the debates take place in a more orderly fashion and that we do not have the noises which have emanated so far from other parts of the Chamber.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is to be debated early after the Christmas Recess. We should get on and deal with other Questions.

    Colonsay
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Colonsay.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): My right hon. Friend has no present plans for a visit.
    Mr. MacCormick: Does the Minister appreciate that this unfortunate news will come as a hammer blow to the hopes and aspirations of the islanders of Colonsay? Will he advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to don the mantle of his illustrious predecessor, Mr. Tom Johnston, and ask the hydro-electric

    443
    board to provide a mains electricity service for the people who live on the Isle of Colonsay?
    Mr. Millan: This is a long-standing problem. The hon. Gentleman will know that the hydro-electric board supplies electricity to about 98 per cent. of the consumers in the area. We are now considering some difficult and expensive cases. The priorities are basically for the hydro-electric board, and so far it has not taken the view that it can provide electricity to this island. I understand that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has a proposal before it for assistance with the supplies of electricity to a more limited number of houses on the island.

    Fishery Protection
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the fishery protection fleet.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have no plans at present for increasing the fishery protection fleet under my control.
    Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister agree that, since the Scottish Office accepted after the war that nine vessels were essential for safeguarding Scottish fisheries, the reduction to six now, one of them allocated to oil-rig duties, leaving five, making about 50 per cent. fewer vessels at a time when the pressures are far higher, is not acceptable protection for the Scottish fisheries?
    Mr. Brown: That is typical of the very dishonest and irresponsible approach of SNP Members. The hon. Gentleman himself might have been going around Lewis 20 years ago on a bicycle; now he probably has a car. What I suggest to him is that the protection—
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Shocking!
    Mr. Brown: The protection service changes with the times, and even with a smaller number of vessels we are now able to give a more effective protection service than that given even with nine vessels previously.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Does not the Minister appreciate that if the SNP's policy of giving the Icelanders a 200-mile limit were put into effect, there could be a 100
    444
    per cent. reduction and that we should not need any protection vessels?
    Mr. Brown: I need not comment on that, other than to agree and to confirm that the simplistic approach by the SNP—
    Mr. Stewart: What about the protection of Scottish fisheries?
    Mr. Brown: The SNP is in danger, perhaps like the fishermen. If the fishermen over-exploit stocks of fish, as the SNP is inclined to over-exploit some of the understandable and natural discontents in the fishing industry, SNP Members, like the fishermen, may end up with no return.
    Mr. Sillars: Have salaries anything to do with the problem of manning vessels? If so, is the Government's £6 policy an inhibition in overcoming that problem?
    Mr. Brown: No, but my hon. Friend is quite right in that there were crewing difficulties last year, although they were not connected with any Government wages policy. However, there have been big improvements in the salaries and, indeed, the leave allowance has been recently increased, so that is certainly not the problem now.

    Scottish Assembly
    Mr. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to pay an official visit to the site of the Scottish Assembly.
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the site of the Scottish Assembly.
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the proposed site of the Scottish Assembly.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 12th November.—[Vol. 899, c. 734.]
    Mr. Reid: Given that reply, may I put a very simple question? Will the Minister take the opportunity today to define, for the first time, what he understands the word "separatism" to mean?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I have noticed in recent days the touchiness of the hon. Member regarding the question of separatism. I should have thought that the responsibility was on the SNP to publish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I know that the SNP finds it difficult to accept responsibility at any time, but I suggest that it would be in the interests of SNP Members if they were to publish a White Paper containing their separatist policies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I should be delighted to debate for the next year what separatism means, because to date—on the eve of the hon. Gentleman's second anniversary as a member of the SNP—the SNP has been running away from separatism. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's fresh approach to putting this matter to the people of Scotland.
    Mr. MacCormick: No answer.
    Mr. Skinner: I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that now we are to have a Scottish Assembly at some time in the future, Scottish Question Time can no longer be regarded as being the property of Scottish Members of Parliament. Will my hon. Friend take it from me, as an English coal miner for 21 years before coming to this House, that I was quite happy to assist the Scottish coal miners by producing coal that was cheaper than that which could be obtained in Scotland? Will my hon. Friend accept that if there are to be any changes arising out of North Sea oil, I should expect the Scottish Assembly to take into account the fact that English ratepayers and taxpayers will no longer be happy to contribute that extra 50 per cent. which, seemingly, we contribute over and above the contribution of Scottish taxpayers, if there is any attempt to prevent the British people getting North Sea oil at the same price as everyone else?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the consequences of separatism. The Scottish miners will give careful attention to exactly what separatism would mean. I welcome my hon. Friend to Scottish Question Time. I hope that the SNP will follow his example of exemplary behaviour as a Back-Bench Member on the Government side of the House, because the behaviour of the SNP today has been absolutely deplorable.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister has failed to define the term "separatism", but, on the other hand, when he next visits the site of the future Scottish Assembly will he consider the wise words of Lord Kilbrandon in a recent television programme, "Panorama", when he said that a natural consequence of devolution could very well be an increase in contacts between Edinburgh and Brussels and a falling away and withering of the connection with Westminster? If that were to be so, would the Minister describe independent Scottish membership of the EEC, according to his definition, as a form of separatism?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member is in great danger of joining the same circus act as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and riding about six horses at one time. Perhaps I should refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. He was opposed to entry to the EEC. I am sure that he would not want that to be forgotten. I happen to take the view that the flow of information and discussion between Edinburgh and Brussels, Edinburgh and London, and Edinburgh and all other world centres will increase with the establishment of a Scottish Assembly.
    I should warn SNP Members that I do not intend to assist them in finding a definition of what separatism really is. It is for them to defend it.
    Mr. Sproat: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a growing number of thinking people in Scotland regard the Government's White Paper as a load of expensive rubbish? They feel that it is a guaranteed recipe for more civil servants, more bureaucracy, more government, more public expenditure and more taxation, and tragically—although the hon. Gentleman does not want it—would inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom within a decade.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I know that these views are held rather strongly by the hon. Gentleman, but there has been no evidence to support the views that he has been putting forward in recent months.
    Mr. Buchan: Perhaps I could be helpful, as always, to SNP Members by helping them in their search for a definition. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the SNP gave the definition a week ago when he said that Scotland

    447
    would be no more separate than Norway or Holland? In other words, England would be a foreign country so far as Scotland was concerned. Does not my hon. Friend agree that this would apply to many of our own relatives living south of the Tweed if the SNP's policy were implemented?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: However unacceptable that view may be to the SNP, it is a fact of life. It is also worth noting that the leader of the SNP is on record as saying that Scotland would have its own army—dare I say a tartan army—its own navy—dare I say a tartan navy—and its own air force—dare I say a tartan air force? I note that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) nods his head in vigorous approval. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it easy to explain to the dockyard workers at Rosyth exactly what will happen to the Royal Dockyard in that situation.
    Mrs. Bain: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of the United Nations Charter, which grants the right of self-determination to all small nations? Has he further considered the savings which would accrue if the powers which are to be split between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Assembly were entirely devolved to the Assembly? Does he appreciate that that would entail an additional staff of approximately only 200? Will the hon. Gentleman put on record that the conversion of the Royal High School into a fit establishment in which to have the Scottish Parliament will cost more than to establish a regional headquarters but probably less than buying ostrich plumes for the Secretary of State when he becomes governor-general?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: No.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain how it will be possible to give thorough consideration to representations about the Scottish Assembly if the deadline for making representations is to be the end of February and if the Bill is expected to be produced in March?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: This debate has gone on for a very long time in Scotland. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would disagree with that statement. We think it reasonable to
    448
    expect that those who want to comment on the White Paper which was published a fortnight ago will have adequate time to consider the White Paper and to submit their views in the time given.
    Mr. Gourlay: Has my hon. Friend read the report in today's Scotsman which indicates that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) believes that we require a year's rational debate on separatism? Will my hon. Friend take the year that is suggested as an opportunity to explain to the people of Scotland what separatism will mean?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: As I said earlier, I am certainly prepared to join in the year's debate on what separatism really means. I am sure that the people of Scotland will welcome the opportunity that has been presented to them not once but twice in recent days by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire. I am sure that once the people of Scotland are given clearly to understand what separatism really means—
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Tell us.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I challenge the SNP to publish its own White Paper. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) says "Tell us". I have already quoted some of the things that the hon. Gentleman thinks it means—namely, a separate army, navy and air force. I think that the debate in the year ahead will bring out a great many more of the bizarre consequences of separatism.

    Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will be attending the annual general meeting of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on 15th December.
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir. This is an independent body and it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to attend.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a great pity, as his right hon. Friend might have taken the opportunity to discuss with the Scottish Council its view that the White Paper
    "does nothing to solve Scotland's fundamental industrial problem"?

    449
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the negative attitude of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is converting more and more of the industrial community in Scotland, both labour and management, to the SNP?
    Mr. Millan: I must say that I had not noticed that at all, and I meet representatives of the industrial community quite frequently.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the Scottish Council is among the leading campaigners for the transfer of 6,000 Civil Service jobs to the West of Scotland, will the Minister say whether he and his colleagues are taking steps to ensure that the programme, which has slipped behind, will be brought forward in view of the serious unemployment situation in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: The programme has not slipped behind. I hope very much that there will be an announcement shortly.

    Local Authorities (Salary Costs)
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue circulars to local authorities encouraging them to reduce their salary costs.
    Mr. Millan: The importance of tightly restricting their manpower and expenditure has been emphasised to local authorities in several recent Scottish Office circulars and on other occasions.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the justification for regionalisation was that if we had larger regions, larger salaries and more responsibility for individuals, we should need fewer individuals? In fact, we have larger salaries and more people. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that is offensive to the ordinary ratepayer who has to pay for them? Will the local authorities do what was intended under the relevant legislation?
    Mr. Millan: As I have said on numerous occasions, the Secretary of State has drawn the attention of local authorities to his very strong view, which I know is widely shared, that there should be no substantial increases in staff. In fact, the rate support grant settlement for the forthcoming year has been made on the basis of freezing all local government expenditure. The Government are not
    450
    providing for additional local authority staffing.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: The continued development of North Sea oil, the dispersal of Civil Service posts to Scotland, and the establishment of the Scottish Development Agency will all help to create new employment. The full range of assistance to industry under the Government's regional policies is available throughout Scotland and, in addition, special measures designed to help areas with high unemployment were announced by the Government on 24th September and 31st October.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer 3s totally unacceptable to the people of Scotland, as is the present high level of unemployment? Is he further aware that the way in which the Government make their announcement on the position of Chrysler at Linwood this week will be a real test of their credibility in Scotland and for the future of the Labour Party in the West of Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: The House knows that the Chrysler situation is under consideration at the minute. I am not able to say anything about it now.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware—and I am sure he is—that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) represents a Scottish constituency with the lowest unemployment in Scotland, as a result of Government policies? Will my right hon. Friend try to hurry up the work of the SDA so that areas such as Hamilton in the West Central belt of Scotland will gain some benefit from Government policies, as has East Aberdeenshire?
    Mr. Millan: I agree that the Aberdeenshire area has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom at present. If SNP policy had been followed, the vast majority of the 50,000, jobs that have been created from North Sea oil in Scotland would have been lost.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal of

    451
    his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to extend the dock labour scheme in Scotland is resisted by all dock workers in the ports of Scotland that do not now have the scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to withdraw the extension of the scheme in the interests of safeguarding the employment of dockers in the smaller ports of Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that that is the position, but the Bill has already been discussed in the House. There will be ample opportunity to discuss the provisions of the Bill during the course of the current Session.

    Grant-aided Schools
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an up-to-date statement on his negotiations with the grant-aided schools in Scotland, including the grant-aided schools in Edinburgh.
    Mr. McElhone: Nineteen of the 26 grant-aided secondary schools have told me that they intend to become independent. The managers of John Watson's School, Edinburgh, have decided to close the school. Negotiations are continuing between the appropriate education authorities and the managers of Marr College, Troon, St. Joseph's College, Dumfries and St. Mary's Cathedral Choir School, Edinburgh. I understand that the education board of the Company of Merchants of Edinburgh, which manages the other three schools, intends that its schools should become independent, though it has offered to sell the Mary Erskine School building to the Lothian Regional Council. The council has asked for my consent to purchase the school, but I have decided that the extra capital expenditure involved would not be justified at the present time.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the comprehensive schools on the western side of Edinburgh—namely, the Royal High School, Craigmount School, Firhill School and the Forester Schools—are already very hard pressed and will be unable to take all the children in their district? They will not be able to cope
    452
    with the influx that will follow as a result of this decision.
    Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that this decision will be regarded in Scotland not as a decision by Scottish Office Ministers, but as a decision on the part of the Treasury? Scottish Office Ministers have shown themselves to be completely impotent to push their own policy to a logical conclusion. This decision will be wholeheartedly condemned by every political party on the Lothian Regional Council.
    Mr. McElhone: I am not sure that we are condemned by every political party on the Lothian Council. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the children who go to the Mary Erskine School do not all come from the west of Edinburgh, as the scattergraph used by the education authority shows. The authority has pointed out that the children come from the catchment areas of 13 different schools, some outwith the area of Edinburgh District Council. It is not true that the pressure will be entirely on the west side of Edinburgh.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my hon. Friend accept that his statement will cause grave disappointment to many people in Edinburgh who support the Government's policy of creating a comprehensive system in that city? Does he appreciate that without money from the Mary Erskine School the fees will be that much higher and more pupils will seek a transfer into the State system than was revealed in the scattergraph? Will he give an assurance that the decision is not final and that, if the position proves intolerable, he will be prepared to look at the matter again? Many people do not see how the Lothian region will be able to place 1,000 extra pupils in the autumn of next year.
    Mr. McElhone: Two points arise from my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The number of pupils involved is not 1,000 but could be around 250 as an approximate guess. Of the three schools in Edinburgh none will be put under pressure by the decision. I have not closed the door finally on this matter. If it appears that accommodation difficulties in the public schools are likely to become acute. I shall consider the matter again.

    CONTEMPT OF COURT
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the operation of the law of contempt of court as it relates to newspapers and the media.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The law of contempt of court as it relates to the media is no doubt capable of improvement. Certain recommendations of the Phillimore Committee have a bearing on the matter. There has been little spontaneous public reaction to that report and in order to supplement its consideration of the recommendations the Government are now initiating consultation with interested bodies before reaching any final decisions. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the outcome.
    Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate the Lord Advocate's reply, but will he realise that in Scotland the law of contempt as it relates to the media is mastered by two decisions of the late Lord Clyde, dominant in a recent decision which was patently unjust to the newspapers concerned? Although in Scotland we should not like to see the absurdity of the system in England in which a defendant, such as Mr. Peter Hain, parades himself in the Press, asking for witnesses to come forward to identify him, will the Lord Advocate ensure that the law of Scotland is not oppressive to the media in the proper exercise of their function of guarding the public interest?
    Mr. Skinner: What about Gerald Nabarro? He did it.
    The Lord Advocate: I am aware of the two cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but fairness and justice are the important considerations when the trial of an accused person is taking place. On any view, there must be rules of reasonable conduct which the media will have to observe. As for the most recent case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, it is a fact that some people wish to see their photographs published in the newspapers almost on any pretext. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not one of them.
    Mr. Fairbairn: I am not on trial.
    The Lord Advocate: When such persons are on trial, they have to be protected, even from themselves.

    DEVOLUTION
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Lord Advocate what discussions he has had with the legal profession with regard to the White Paper on Devolution.
    The Lord Advocate: So far I have not discussed the White Paper with the legal profession. The Government have, however, invited the profession to submit any observations which it may wish to make on the proposals set out in the White Paper, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any observations received in response to that invitation will be most carefully considered.
    Mr. Rifkind: In case the Lord Advocate does not take part in the devolution debate in January, will he inform the House what was meant in the White Paper about control over the legal profession being devolved to the Assembly?
    The Lord Advocate: What is intended by the White Paper is that such power as is possessed by Westminster at present to legislate on the legal profession will be devolved to the Scottish Assembly. In saying that, it is necessary to make two qualifications. On the one hand, the present practice has been that legislation on the legal profession has been of very limited extent and generally at the request of the branch of the legal profession concerned. On the other hand, control means no more than it says. There is no intention to devolve to the Scottish Assembly anything greater than the Westminster Parliament at present enjoys in regard to the legal profession. However, it is correct to point out that the White Paper accurately states the potential of devolution on this aspect.

    RATING
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to meet the Scottish Law Commission.
    The Lord Advocate: I have no formal meetings arranged with the Scottish Law Commission.
    Mr. Taylor: Has the Lord Advocate seen the important case in the English High Court where a ruling was given that a householder who did not possess sewerage services should not pay rates? Does he regard that decision as raising an important principle? Is he willing to invite the Scottish Law Commission to examine this matter, because it could make a substantial difference to the rate liability of Scottish householders?
    The Lord Advocate: Whether the law should be reviewed or changed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is little point in referring the matter to the Scottish Law Commission, because there is no doubt about the legal position in Scotland. Sewerage is one of the many services the cost of which is met from regional sources. There is no parallel in England. The difference is that between rating on the one hand and charges for services on the other. The nearest situation in Scotland to the position in England concerns the arrangement for water services. In Scotland if a person does not receive water, he is not charged.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In view of the extent of EEC legislation, will the Lord Advocate recommend the appointment of an extra Law Commissioner in Scotland with the special duty of reviewing the enormous amount of legislation and its relationship to Scots law and Scots lawyers?
    The Lord Advocate: The manning of the Scottish Law Commission is kept under constant review, in view of the heavy load that falls on that office. The amount of EEC legislation is one factor to be considered. As present I do not believe there is any necessity for the appointment of an additional Law Commissioner.

    DIVORCE LAW
    Mr. David Steelasked the Lord Advocate what representations he has received about the reform of the divorce laws in Scotland.
    The Lord Advocate: Since I last answered a Question on this matter on 22nd October, I have received several representations from members of the public.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Government undertake to give all possible support, including the necessary time for a Private Member's Bill, which I understand may be introduced this Session?
    The Lord Advocate: I understand that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has made a statement on this topic. Should he make a request in the appropriate form to me or to any other Minister, the request will be considered on its merits.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (COURT OF JUSTICE)
    Mr. Reidasked the Lord Advocate whether he will pay an official visit to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
    The Lord Advocate: I had the pleasure in January of this year of paying an interesting and, I hope, useful visit to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Although I hope to make further visits to the court, I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Reid: Does the Lord Advocate remember a phrase in Scots law solvitur ambulando to the effect that one will bumble through in the end? Since some of this work will foul up Scottish law, will the Lord Advocate make the situation clear to his co-jurists at the European Court of Justice?
    The Lord Advocate: I think the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the sole British judge in the European Court is Scottish. The maxim he mentioned may be no more impressive to that Scottish judge than it is to the hon. Gentleman. As for the quality of law administered by the Court of Justice, even the most cursory examination of its decisions shows that it takes account in the fullest sense of decisions in the various nations of the Community, and no criticism about judicial quality can be levelled against it.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: In the light of the SNP's recent conversion to Europe, if not yet to Britain, will the Lord Advocate impress on his Cabinet colleagues the importance of the earliest implementation of Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome, which calls for direct elections to the

    457
    European Assembly, so that we in Scotland may elect our members directly instead of having them selected for us by the Westminster Parliament?
    The Lord Advocate: The Government have already made their position clear on that matter, and the hon. Member has added his voice to it.

SELECT COMMITTEE (AVAILABILITY OF REPORT)
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you help the House in the matter of the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax, notably on the publication of Volume I of the Report of the proceedings of the Committee? This was due to be published at 11.30 this morning and the Chairman of the Committee, whom I have sought to inform about this point, was holding a Press conference at that time. Copies of Volume IV, which contains the most important appendices, and Volume I were due in the Vote Office at 11 o'clock. Volume IV arrived at about 11.45 a.m. and Volume I somewhat later. As a result, the Press conference started with no copies being available to the Committee members or their Chairman or to the Press, since in this case copies were not made available to the Press in advance.
Only 50 copies of Volume I arrived at the House at about 11.50 a.m. As a result, very few copies were available for hon. Members, and members of the Select Committee were reduced to borrowing conies from the Press and others in order to be able to discuss their own Report, since they could not see it until it was published at 11.30 a.m. These copies of Volume I ran out very quickly and there was none available after that until 2.35 p.m., when 75 copies arrived in the Vote Office.
I do not know whether there is any way in which you can help the House, Mr. Speaker, or whether there is anything that can be done, since this is a matter wholly within the competence, if that is the right word, of the Leader of the House.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I apologise for not being in my place when the right hon. Gentleman raised his point of order. He let my
458
office know a little while ago and in the last few minutes I have been making some inquiries into this matter.
I understand that when the Committee decided last Wednesday that the Report should he published at 11.30 a.m. today it was advised that this was not a realistic timetable, but it insisted on it. The Report is a complex and very lengthy printing job. It comprises 700 pages in two volumes, and the Committee was still heavily engaged in amending it.
I have inquired into the number of copies available and my information is in line with that of the right hon. Member. One hundred copies were delivered to the Committee Clerk at 11.40 a.m., 50 copies to the Vote Office at 12.20 p.m. and 75 copies to the Vote Office at 2.30 p.m I am sorry they were not available earlier. I am looking into the matter to see what I can do to help. It is a very big job and I think the printers have not done a bad job in the circumstances.
Mr. Macmillan: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Committee decided last Wednesday to have the Press conference and publication today. The Committee did not decide as recently as that on publication because it did not exist at that time. The publication date was settled in accordance with the printing requirements, and the Chairman of the defunct Select Committee decided to have a Press conference at the time of publication on the assurance that copies would be available at that time. We should have been warned if there was any difficulty in meeting that timetable so that we could postpone publication.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point of order. I was informed about this rather early today. Everything is being done to get as many copies as possible here as quickly as possible.
Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the Leader of the House will be as good as his word and do what he can to see that supplies of the Report are available as soon as possible, but what matters is that these things should not recur. There are constantly mishaps of this kind, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put in motion some arrangements to stop them recurring.
Mr. Skinner: Whenever there is a slight delay—usually only hours—in relation to printing, Opposition Members quickly jump to their feet to complain. I would like to say on behalf of many hon. Members on this side that we appreciate the difficulties—[Interruption]—I do not adopt double standards, even if some other do—and we realise that almost every day Hansard is printed up to 10 o'clock for the following morning. As far as we are concerned, we think that in the circumstances the printers are not doing a had job at all.
Mr. Peyton rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is really irregular. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) agreed that this was not a matter for the Chair when he raised the point. It is a custom of the House to allow such a mater to be raised and for the Leader of the House to answer it. I think everybody now knows that everything possible is being done to get copies here.

EMPLOYMENT (DISABLED PERSONS)
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of sheltered employment and of the quota scheme for disabled people. Statutory responsibility for sheltered employment is divided between central and local government and the consultative document published by the previous Administration in 1973 suggested that there would be advantages in a more unified system.
It is clear that there is no form of unification which would command sufficiently widespread support and the Government have, therefore, decided to retain the present statutory responsibilities. The Government are, however, anxious that the main policy aims set out in the document, which have commanded wide support, should be actively pursued and consider that this will be best achieved if the Manpower Services Commission takes over my Department's administrative and co-ordinating functions in this field. Arrangements for this transfer, to which the Commission has agreed, will be made as soon as possible.
460
The Commission will be taking steps to promote the closest co-operation between all those concerned with the provision of sheltered employment, to encourage its rehabilitative aspects and the more extensive provision of enclave arrangements and to review the priority suppliers' scheme.
The Government have decided that the quota scheme should be retained and have agreed with the Commission, which is already responsible for much of the scheme's administration, that it should, as soon as possible, take over full responsibility, including inspection and enforcement. The present quota percentage will be retained at least until the Commission has gained experience of administering the scheme and is able to put forward views on this issue.
This unification of functions under the Commission will, I am sure, be more satisfactory than the present division of responsibility between the Commission and my Department.
The Government believe that greater public knowledge of the quota position of individual employers is desirable and will be exploring the possibility of placing a statutory obligation on employers to make information about their quota positions publicly available. Meanwhile, figures for Government Departments will in future be published annually and other employers in the public sector will be asked to agree to similar arrangements.
I am asking the Commission to consider the issue of a code of practice on the employment of disabled people for the guidance of employers and also to consider, in the light of the lessons learnt from the recent programme of stricter enforcement of the quota in selected areas, what more can be done to bring home to employers the need to employ more disabled people.
At the same time the Government will themselves be taking steps to promote the employment of more disabled people in the Civil Service and will be asking other employers in the public sector to review their employment policies towards the same end.
I shall also be asking the Commission to introduce a scheme under which employers who modify their premises or install special or modified equipment to enable disabled people to enter or remain

461
in their employment will be eligible for capital grants.
The National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, to whose work I should like to pay tribute, will remain statutorily responsible to my right hon. Friend, but in practice most of its advice will need in future to be directed towards the Commission which will, therefore, be strengthening its already close relationship with the Council.
Mr. Hayhoe: On behalf of the Opposition I welcome the Government statement, particularly since it would be shameful at a time of record high unemployment if we did not pay especial attention to the employment prospects of the disabled. Am I right in saying that unemployment among the registered disabled is about double the national average? Does the Minister consider that the new administrative and co-ordination arrangements which he has announced will lead to a higher fulfilment of the quota scheme established under the 1944 Act?
Has the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People been consulted about these new arrangements, and has it agreed to them? May I, on behalf of all hon. Members, wish the Manpower Services Commission well in the discharge of its new responsibility?
Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Member for the welcome he has given to the statement. Certainly none of us can be satisfied with the unsatisfactory level of unemployment among the disabled. The position is even worse than the hon. Member suggested. I think the unemployment rate among the registered disabled is between 12½ per cent. and 13 per cent. But we can derive some small comfort from the fact that it has not risen nearly as sharply as for other people. Nevertheless, none of us can be happy with the high level of unemployment.
The National Advisory Council has been fully consulted all along. I do not pretend that the statement faithfully reflects its views on everything. It had different ideas about the level at which the statutory quota should be set. The hon. Gentleman will know the difficult obstacles to the higher fulfilment of the quota. Not least of those are some of the statutory provisions which prevent a
462
more rigorous enforcement, and perhaps I have had to learn that the hard way over the last 18 months.
If we take the steps I have outlined, not least of which are the obligations for a fuller disclosure of statutory compliance, that will help. I am convinced that if only we can oblige employers to make the position clear to the public and to their workers, there will be some red faces and considerable pressure upon them to do better.
Mr. Ashley: My hon. Friend the Minister and I have exchanged some acrimonious words about this subject. Although I welcome the retention of the quota scheme and the constructive proposals he has put before the House, I feel that it is very late in the day to produce such phrases as "exploring possibilities" and "considering in the light of". Is he aware that the only solution to this scandalous problem of thousands of disabled people being unemployed is to require every employer to pay for his 3 per cent. quota whether or not he employs that quota? It is no good tinkering with the problem as my hon. Friend is doing. He must require the employers to pay, and then they will be asking disabled people to work for them rather than the other way round.
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that he has campaigned vigorously and robustly on these issues. This is not an area where, as my hon. Friend suggests, there are ready answers. The problems are more easily identified than they are solved. The proposals he has put forward have been carefully examined by the National Advisory Council.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I welcome the proposals which are continuing the work of successive Governments, as the Minister was generous enough to point out. I do not quarrel with the retention of the quota scheme, although that was not in our original proposals. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance in seeking higher fulfilment, which I entirely support, along with the new obligation on employers to publish their quota, that this will be achieved by the employment of more disabled people and not by forcing those who are not registered to register?
Mr. Walker: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome his remarks. He was right to point out that one of the consequences of more rigorous enforcement and of some of the other ideas which have been properly pursued may be not the employment of mon disabled people but more disabled employees being registered. That would be unhelpful. The objective must be to try to get more disabled people into jobs.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has given a pleasant hostage to fortune to myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in the sense that he has made promises to us. We shall be chasing him to make sure that he fulfils those promises. When I say "he" I do not mean him personally, because I know that the Minister's heart is in the right place on this issue. Does he agree that, basically, technology can assist severely disabled people to earn a living and to pay income tax? What we need is back-tip support from the Department. We should also be thinking in terms of employment for those who want it whether it be in the home, in sheltered workshops, or in open employment.
Mr. Walker: I am not quite sure which hostage I have given to fortune. I must qualify what I said about direct financial incentives for employment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who has special responsibility for the disabled, is proposing to issue a discussion document in the New Year, in consequence of last year's White Paper, in which this whole idea will be more thoroughly explored.
Mr. Marten: May I join in the general welcome for what the Minister said, and recognise his own personal interest in this matter? Will the Minister ask the Manpower Services Commission to take a look at a proposal which I made but which was turned down? I suggested that the Queen's Award for Industry should be given only to those firms which fulfilled their quota. I believe that it was turned down merely because there had been a recent review of the system, which will not be looked at again apparently until 1980. That is going too far. Can we not have a special review of this point now?
Mr. Walker: I was aware that the hon. Member had pursued this idea. We had two ideas in relation to awards. One was, as he has described, to use the Queen's Award for Industry to put pressure on employers. The Queen's Award for Industry Committee recently looked at the idea and turned it down. I was not aware that we shall have to wait until 1980 before the system is reviewed again, and if there is scope for the Manpower Services Commission to seek to reopen the question I shall draw that to the Commission's attention. Our other idea for a separate award scheme was looked at by the National Advisory Council, which was not at all enthusiastic about it.
Mrs. Bain: I welcome the moves announced by the Minister although some of us believe that they do not go far enough. With the transfer of responsibility to the Manpower Services Commission, will there be an extension of financial resources to increase training facilities for the disabled, because in many areas these are sadly lacking? Will the Minister indicate what percentage increase he envisages in the numbers employed by the Government and the Civil Service?
Mr. Walker: I would be unwise to try to guess an answer to the hon. Lady's latter question. Like her and, I am sure, the whole House, I hope that this move will result in an increase in the numbers, with more Government Departments complying with the 3 per cent. requirement.
The Training Services Agency identified the priority areas for training in its five-year plan. It did not include in its priorities the need for training disabled workers, but it is carrying out a review with the intention of giving a high place in its priority lists to the needs of disabled workers.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that he will ensure that Government Departments become active in this respect. Could he say to what extent the Government Departments at the moment have a shortfall in their quota? Will he either now or in the Official Report give details of the extent to which the higher Civil Service is taking up its quota? I have in mind particularly those Government Departments

465
concerned with clerical and administrative higher grade work. I am told that there are very few physically disabled among the top civil servants, who, by the way, receive very high retirement pensions.
Mr. Walker: I am not sure that I can usefully comment on or constructively take up the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. I have no figures at present which indicate the distribution of disabled persons throughout the Civil Service, and I am not sure that they can be made avaliable without disproportionate and very expensive efforts.
On the more general point that my hon. Friend raised about compliance by Government Departments, we published some details in reply to a Written Question recently. I regret that I cannot give the date offhand, but my hon. Friend will find all this in Hansard. I am aware that a number of Government Departments are not complying and they are under considerable pressure to comply. As I have said, we shall now publish the figures annually so that if people want to point a critical finger they will be at liberty to do so. I feel I ought to say that we should make sure that our own house is in order, and I mean that in the most literal way. The returns of Parliament itself make very depressing reading indeed, and I hope the House will look at its own record in this respect.
Mr. Burden: I believe that there is a great deal of compassion in the country for the disabled but that there is an unawareness of the extent to which they could be helped. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of advertising or devising a television programme similar to the driving programme sponsored by the Department of the Environment, drawing the attention of employers to the need to help the disabled and also acquainting employers with the fact that they can obtain a list of disabled people in their areas from the local authority? This might be helpful.
Mr. Walker: I welcome the general tenor of the hon. Gentleman's approach. We in this House should make clear that the stigma which is sometimes attached to disabled people is wholly undeserved and that, indeed, in the great majority of occupations they can perform as well as, and
466
in some cases better than, persons who are not disabled.
I will consider the suggestion for wider advertising, but the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, understand the constraints within which the Government are working at present. Nevertheless we shall consider that point.
Mr. George: Will my hon. Friend say what steps have been taken to promote the employment of disabled persons in the public sector? Will he also explain the reference to the priority supply scheme, of which I know nothing? Will the result of the surveys about quota compliance in the six areas, of which Walsall was one, be published? Can my hon. Friend say also whether the derisory number of prosecutions of firms and public bodies will be increased as a result of this new initiative?
Mr. Walker: I will try to take those questions in order. I have already mentioned what the Government are doing in connection with the various Departments. The Civil Service is undertaking an extensive review of employment policies in connection with disabled people in the Civil Service. The nationalised industries and the National Health Service, on which the Under-Secretary of State for Social Services who is responsible for the disabled made a public announcement recently, will be asked to undertake similar steps. The local authority associations will be consulted about the publication of similar figures and about the best way to encourage a similar review of employment policies among local authorities.
With regard to the priority supply scheme, this is an arrangement under which sheltered workshops and factories are given a certain degree of preference when contracts are placed by Government Departments. Nationalised industries and Government Departments are encouraged to take part in these arrangements. We are asking the Commission to review the scheme with the National Advisory Council with the objective of seeing whether more disabled persons can be placed with the sheltered workshop factories.
With regard to the areas selected for more rigorous enforcement last year. I am not sure whether in its present form

467
the report would be suitable for publication. Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave the matter with me and I will see whether we can respond to his suggestion.
On the point about prosecutions arising from that exercise with the six areas, we recently had two prosecutions. That may not seem very many, but much more has been done in recent years and in more areas. Indeed, I have been called a bureaucratic madman.
Mr. Hannam: Is the Under-Secretary aware of a major new threat to the employment of disabled people through the implementation on 1st January of the legislation relating to fire precautions in offices, shops and factories? Will the hon. Gentleman discuss with the appropriate Minister in the Home Office the best means of avoiding the turning away of many disabled people if the Act is implemented in its present form?
Mr. Walker: There may be a problem here, but I think it is easy to exaggerate it. Certainly I will undertake the consultation for which the hon. Gentleman asked. I hope that the capital grants scheme which I have announced will enable employers to overcome some of the difficulties which that legislation may create.
Mr. Craigen: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the proposed new rôle of the Manpower Services Commission will be generally welcomed by those involved in the Scottish Blindcraft workshops as being in line with their own representations to him last year? Could he give an indication of the extent to which his Depart-
468
ment has encouraged local authorities and other public bodies to allocate contracts with those engaged in sheltered workshops?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware of the statement I have just made about the review of the priority supply scheme. That is relevant to his question. Of course, he is quite right to remind me that the proposal to transfer the responsibility to the MSC found support in Scotland, not only in the area to which he referred but also among the local authorities generally.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Minister's statement. In the knowledge that for many years—30 years, I believe—you have been interested in helping the disabled, may I ask you whether you took note of the Minister's reply to a question about the situation in Parliament? In so far as it affects your personal responsibilities, and knowing your influence with other Departments which may not come under your own direct control, may I ask you to exert pressure in order to put right the situation which the Minister has mentioned?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I had noted what the Minister said.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Subscription to Shares of the Additional Capital Stock) Order 1975 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ARMED FORCES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Will it be for the convenience of the House if we debate the Bill and at the same time the motion seeking approval for the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1975?
  Hon. Members: Agreed.
  3.59 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The primary purpose of this Bill is simple. It seeks to renew and to revise the provisions which determine the day-to-day legal famework within which members of all three Armed Services live their Service lives. I put it that way because a narrow emphasis on discipline could be misleading.
  The Bill is brought forward, as the preamble to it makes clear, in order that the Service Discipline Acts may be continued for a further five years. Its scope helps to ensure that as far as possible the rules that determine Service life reflect and keep pace with civil experience and practice.
  The principle of civil control of the military has a long and rarely challenged history in this country. Others have not been so fortunate. As this is the season of recommended Christmas reading, I recommend Professor S. E. Finer's interesting book, "The Man on Horseback", to those who wish to study the circumstances and motives of military intervention in politics. The growth of parliamentary Government and the Cabinet system has enabled us to achieve a constitutional stability that the military have not sought in this country to challenge. I am not among those who see any evidence of a breakdown in this tradition.
  It follows that Parliament has been jealous of its power to regulate the Armed Forces. On the one hand, it has attached great importance to its right to vote Supply: debates on defence expenditure have an honourable history. On the other
  470
  hand, it has taken a close interest in all that comes under the heading of reform.
  It is barely 100 years ago that Edward Cardwell, an underestimated figure among Victorian statesmen, judging by an informal straw poll that I conducted in the Smoking Room last night, abolished flogging in the Army in peace time and then went on to his more famous and controversial reform of abolishing the purchase of commissions.
  I cannot claim that there is anything in this Bill as far-reaching. I simply make the point that the Cardwell reforms of the 1860s and 1870s were part of the parliamentary process of which this Bill can be seen as the latest stage.
  May I refer to the future progress of the Bill if it receives its Second Reading today? My intention would then be to move to send it to a Select Committee, as on the last occasion in 1971. When the Select Committee has examined the Bill in the usual way and reported, it will be recommitted to the whole House.
  At a time when the House is once more re-examining its procedures and timetables, I hope that I may draw attention to the course that this Bill will follow. Taking off my departmental hat, if I may do so, I see great virtue in the use of a Select Committee rather than a Standing Committee to examine the details of legislation that is not sharply controversial—as I believe this Bill not to be—between Government and Opposition. This Bill will give Members further experience of this alternative.
  I do not propose on Second Reading to give to the House a detailed explanation of every clause of the Bill, because, of its nature, it lends itself primarily to detailed scrutiny. It is somewhat of a maze to a simple non-legal mind like mine. Nevertheless, I should draw attention to some of the more important points in it.
  Clause I provides for the omission in future of the requirement to have the Service Discipline Acts renewed annually by means of an annual Continuation Order. This might appear to be a significant departure from historic practice, even weakening; parliamentary control over the Armed Forces. It may be that this is a constitutional issue which right hon. and hon. Members will wish to raise during the course of the

  471
  debate, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. But in fact it is a logical extension of the developments which have taken place in the parliamentary treatment of these matters over the last 20 years.
  The House will recall that in 1955 the Army and Air Force Acts became quinquennial Acts subject to annual renewal by Order in Council, after affirmative resolution by both Houses, up to a maximum of five years, and that the Naval Discipline Act was placed on the same footing in the last Armed Forces Act in 1971.
  I hope that the House will agree that the quinquennial review system has worked well. It provides the House with a suitably spaced opportunity for looking at these Acts in a thorough way to see whether and where they require changes or adaptation. The annual renewal of the Acts by Order in Council, however, now plays no part in this process. The Continuation Order was last debated, in less than a half-day, in 1972, and in 1973 and 1974 it was treated as a formality. On the last occasion it was tacked on to the end of a wider debate on defence. Such a debate—one of several we have each year—now marks the control exercised by Parliament over the provision of support for the Services.
  Thus, although this Bill does not make provision for annual Continuation Orders after 1976, appropriate and frequent opportunities will certainly occur for discussion of matters of the kind which were once dealt with in debates arising out of the annual Continuation Order. If Governments proved negligent, successive Oppositions would, I am sure, remedy this. Meanwhile—that is why we are taking the Continuation Order today—there is a requirement this year, under the 1971 Act, to continue the Service Discipline Acts in an affirmative resolution to that effect.
  I should like to deal now with the clauses in the Bill which propose some changes in the disciplinary arrangements of the Armed Forces. The Select Committee on the last Armed Forces Act said that
  "the system of quinquennial reviews by Select Committees, although it provides the Services with valuable opportunities for revising their disciplinary legislation, could also subject them to continuous pressure towards change for the
  472
  sake of change, perhaps against their better judgment. Your Committee therefore emphasise that in preparing the next Bill the Ministry of Defence should have only one object in mind; the best interests of the Services themselves".
  That injunction was delivered in the light of the fairly fundamental review of the Acts which was then undertaken and which resulted in particular in the offence-making sections in the Service Discipline Acts, and their related maximum punishments, being brought into line for all the Services.
  The period of more than three years that these provisions have been in operation has been essentially a settling-in period. The new provisions have proved just and effective. Clearly, we would not seek to put forward such fundamental proposals on this occasion unless the need for them had been demonstrated. We have found no such need. We have, however, discovered some areas in which change is required.
  I turn to Clause 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill, dealing with the position of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service. The latter is, described, I am told, perfectly properly as the QARNNS, just as the Women's Royal Naval Service is more familiarly known as the WRNS.
  Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy announced last July that we would be proposing to bring both the WRNS and the QARNNS within the ambit of the Naval Discipline Act. This proposal, which is embodied in Clause 4, is one of the results of a thorough review of the rôle and organisation of the WRNS. We believe that in future the WRNS should be more closely integrated into the naval service in matters of employment and training, which will enable them to participate both in the wider opportunities and also in the fuller obligations of the Service. It is therefore sensible that the members of the WRNS, and the QARNNS, too, should become legally members of Her Majesty's Naval Forces and be brought fully within the scope of the Naval Discipline Act.
  This proposal would have the additional benefit of placing the women's Services of the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force on the same legal basis since, as hon. Members will be aware, both the

  473
  Army and Air Force Acts have applied to the women's Services of the Army and Royal Air Force for more than 30 years.
  The next item that I want to mention is contained in Clause 5 which is in Part II of the Bill and relates to the summary disciplinary powers exercised by commanding officers in the Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force. The Select Committee on the last Armed Forces Bill recommended that the possible need for an increase in these powers should be examined during the interval between then and the present Bill. I think it would be fair to say that the Select Committee, which had taken evidence from individual commanding officers, had an open mind about the possible outcome, and suggested only that any proposals should be considered on their merits.
  The conclusion of our examination was that it would be of real value if commanding officers were given additional powers to deal summarily with breaches of Service discipline. The number of courts martial would therefore be reduced, which would be of benefit administratively and would avoid a Service man suffering the relatively greater stigma of a court martial for this kind of offence.
  It is therefore proposed to increase the summary powers of commanding officers so that they may award 60 days' detention to private soldiers and equivalent ranks and to allow commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities to award fines of up to 28 days' pay in peace time in respect of all ranks with whom they can deal.
  But before anyone suggests that this is a regressive change, damaging to the rights of the individual, may I add this: quite apart from the importance to the Service man of avoiding a court martial, provision is being made to limit the exercise of the new powers of detention to commanding officers of at least the rank of lieutenant-colonel or equivalent. In addition, we shall require the taking of legal advice on each case and its submission to higher authority before the extended award is made. These particular safeguards are not written into the Bill but will be arranged by way of statutory regulation in conjunction with the introduction of increased powers.
  The Royal Navy will not be affected by these changes. The last Select Com-
  474
  mittee expressed itself satisfied that the powers exercised by naval commanding officers were suited to the needs of that Service. This point has been looked at again in the present review, but no alteration is recommended.
  Part II of the Bill also contains proposals to provide a new range of sentences which can be awarded to civilians under the 1955 and 1957 Acts, and, in the case of the 1955 Acts only, for the setting up of a Standing Civilian Court. These changes are again designed to extend the rights of the individual. They are proposed because we feel that military tribunals and the sentences available to them are not always appropriate for dealing with many of the offences alleged against civilians serving with the Armed Forces abroad or civilian dependants of either Service men or civilians abroad. These civilians are subject to trial under the Service Discipline Acts, and at present the only penalties available to deal with any offences which they commit are imprisonment or a fine. Such punishments have been found in practice to be much too inflexible, especially when dealing with juveniles.
  The difficulties to which I have referred have arisen especially in relation to British Forces, Germany. I do not wish to give the House the impression that there is a grave crime problem at present among British civilians in Germany because there is not. But they have not entirely escaped the trends which have been apparent in this country of an increase in the rate of juvenile crime. The proposals in the Bill have been prompted chiefly by a desire to provide greater suitability of sentence and to seek to ensure, most especially in the case of juveniles, that each individual case can be dealt with in the most appropriate and helpful way.
  I said earlier that the Bill as a whole sought to keep pace with civil experience and practice. In this case, the awards or sentences under the Bill are generally modelled, in respect of juveniles, on those available in England and Wales, and, for adults, on those which might be applied in a magistrates' court in this country. The magistrate in the Standing Civilian Court would be a lawyer, drawn from the staff of the Judge Advocate General, and provision is also made that, where juveniles are on trial, suitably fitted lay members may sit in addition. Some cases

  475
  of a more serious nature would still require to go to a court martial, but provision is also made in Clause 8 for civilian Crown servants to sit as members of courts martial. A civilian will also always have the right to elect trial by court martial and to appeal, up to the Court Martial Appeals Court.
  There is one other feature of Part II of the Bill to which it would, I think, be right for me to direct the attention of the House. We have been concerned to ensure that financial penalties imposed by Service tribunals can be recovered even after those against whom they were awarded have passed out of the jurisdiction of those tribunals. This can occur when men have left the Services or when civilians who have been serving overseas return to this country. The arrangements will be that these penalties can be registered for enforcement here with civil courts of summary jurisdiction. This will enable them to be enforced to the same extent that they would be if they had been imposed by an English court.
  The House will have been glad to note from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the Bill will have no significant effect on public service manpower. As for cost, some additional expenditure will arise as a result of care orders made under Schedule 5 of the Bill, but, apart from saying that it will be small, I cannot forecast it precisely.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: Before my right hon. Friend leaves this part of the Bill, will he say a word or two about the effect of the increase from 28 to 60 days' detention on the policy and control of military corrective training centres, especially Colchester? Has he any plans to ensure that, now that there is the additional possibility of more men serving detention, arrangements will be made for an independent element to be applied to the inspection of Army and Air Force detention quarters, as now exists for the inspection of Royal Naval detention quarters?
  Mr. Rodgers: I hesitate to join my hon. Friend in his assumption that the provisions of this Bill are likely to lead to larger numbers of men going into detention. I think the contrary will be the case. But I remember my hon.
  476
  Friend's distinguished contribution to the last Select Committee and his concern then with the problem of Colchester. He may remember that the Select Committee made certain recommendations in this respect, and I believe that they were followed by an inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Defence which reached a very similar conclusion to that of the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend had been in favour. So I think that such anxieties as he has are unfounded in the light of his success in making a contribution to the Select Committee which considered the previous Bill. But I shall examine what he has said, and it may be that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say something further to satisfy him.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: When the same part of the Bill was being drafted, did my right hon. Friend consider what takes place in the West German forces and those of other countries—that is to say, trade unionism for rank and file members of the forces? Does he think that this is a suggestion which could be considered seriously in our own country?
  Mr. Rodgers: It would be wrong to say to my hon. Friend that this was a matter which crossed my desk in a significant way in the course of discussions on the Bill. I share with him the view that matters of this kind are proper subjects for discussion. Armed Forces in different countries follow different practices, and we should not, simply because of our own tradition, rule out consideration of ways which are unfamiliar or strange to us. I am sure that if my hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will seek to raise this matter with you. I do not dismiss it, though there is no provision for it in the Bill.
  Today's debate is on one important, though totally limited, aspect of defence policy. I do not know the extent to which hon. Members may seek to widen the area of debate. I do not know whether they will wish to do so in the way that my hon. Friends have described or in some other way, and least of all whether any such attempt will succeed. But in view of recent comments on rather wider matters than those covered by the Bill, perhaps I should say this: any current review of defence expenditure is no more than part of the usual annual

  477
  public expenditure survey conducted by successive Governments at this time of year when the future programmes of all spending Departments are subject to close scrutiny. The procedures are familiar to the House. The issues are ones we have frequently debated and the outcome of the survey is certainly not decided. In so far as the exercise is attracting more attention on this occasion, that reflects the extent to which the level of public expenditure in 1977–78 and beyond is agreed, on both sides of the House, to have important consequences for our economic recovery.
  In due course we shall have the Public Expenditure White Paper and the Defence White Paper, quite apart from any earlier statement that may be made. No doubt these will give an opportunity for the overall debate to be resumed. For the moment, the House will understand that neither myself nor my hon. Friend who will wind up the debate this evening can usefully add to or comment on current speculation. Nor could my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, even were he not inescapably engaged today in Brussels on vital NATO business.
  Nevertheless, I would point out that the debate about priorities for expenditure is an old one. It is part of the essential business of government. The need is to find a balance between public and private consumption and between spending on social programmes and other essential claims on the nation's resources, including defence. On 13th May last year, in the course of the first major defence debate of this Government, I said that any economies in spending likely to arise out of our defence review would be compatible with a realistic assessment both of our commitments and of the threat to our security, and I added that they would not otherwise be acceptable to me or to my right hon. or hon. Friends. I am sure that the position is precisely the same now in the case of any defence savings that may follow from current discussions.
  Mr. David Steel: Can I tempt the Minister to go a little further than those general statements this afternoon? Will he accept that there is all the difference in the world between defence cuts which follow a political decision—for example,
  478
  the withdrawal east of Suez—and defence cuts which are taken for financial reasons and lead to a change in the political structure of, for example, the Western Alliance and might convert NATO to an American-German alliance with trappings?
  Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman can certainly tempt me to complete my speech and in so doing I may well say something relevant to his inquiry. Of course—this is implied by what the hon. Gentleman said—questions of judgment arise about the level of defence spending consistent with our obligations. There is room for two views, and perhaps for more than two. But for my part, for what it is worth, I would not remain a member of a Government which undermined the collective security of the West to which successive Governments have been committed for nearly 30 years through NATO under the Treaty which Ernest Bevin signed.
  I believe that the Bill contains a series of modest but desirable proposals and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. George Younger), I should like to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has agreed that today's debate can go wider than the terms of the Bill itself.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. George Younger: The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle and most of its details. We also welcome what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have just said about the scope of the debate. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has presented the Bill and for the trouble he has taken to add some comments at the end of his remarks. We shall note those comments carefully.
  We entirely accept that the Secretary of State could not be present today. We hope that he is having successful discussions in Brussels where he is taking a leading role. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also accept that we are a little disappointed to hear that he will not be winding up the debate. We always welcome him at the Dispatch Box and, in view of the wider nature of the debate, as he has wider responsibilities, we felt that he would be able to contribute rather

  479
  more in the winding-up speech than his hon. Friend, for all his skill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note that we had hoped the position would be the other way round.
  It is also a pity—I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman at all—that the Government business managers have led us to the position where we have to have this debate when unavoidably the Secretary of State cannot be present. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey our view to the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman is being perfectly fair. I think that he knows that the expectation was that today we would deal with the Bill in perhaps rather less time than usual, and we did not anticipate any wish to take the debate wider. Moreover, it was always open to the Opposition, had they so chosen, to take a Supply Day for a wider-ranging defence debate. Indeed, I think that there might have been value in so doing. However, the matter was settled through the usual channels and we must all recognise the limitations of this debate for both sides.
  Mr. Younger: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. On this occasion it is possible that the legendary usual channels have become somewhat clogged. I hope that we can avoid this in future. Through history, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, this has been the occasion for a much wider debate on defence generally. Indeed, the history of the renewal of the Discipline Acts goes back for hundreds of years and has its roots in the constitutional rights of the House to question and to control the Executive about particular aspects of the Services.
  I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about the acceptance, with which we now agree, that the annual re-enactment of these Acts by means of affirmative Order has probably now served its purpose and should be discontinued. We have no objection to that provided we can have, as the right hon. Gentleman assured us we could, the proper and appropriate number of general debates on defence spread throughout the year.
  I am glad the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that the Bill will be sent to a Select Committee for further con-
  480
  sideration. That is a very good thing. Will the Minister when he winds up please add a little to what the right hon. Gentleman has said? Will the Select Committee have the usual, normal, fairly wide rights to visit places, if the need should arise, to call witnesses, and so on? Is it intended that there should be a Minister on the Select Committee? When asking that question, I make it clear that I am not suggesting that there should be a Minister on the Committee, because I do not think that that would be wise use of ministerial time. However, as this point has been raised in previous debates, it might be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend, could comment on the intentions in this matter.
  We welcome the change which includes in the Discipline Acts formally and properly the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service. That is a good tidying-up of what has been assumed to be the position for a long time. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the women's Services, because it is a change that they have been anxious to have for a long time. Will the Minister tell us whether any other members of the Services are not fully subject to the Discipline Acts? I hope that a proper search has been made of the byways of the Ministry of Defence to make sure that we have now finally tidied up this matter for good.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment upon the working of the single system of Service law which was brought in five or more years ago. We should like to know whether it is working as smoothly as was hoped at the time that it was brought in. My experience is that it is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on that.
  Finally on these detailed points, will the hon. Gentleman tell us more about the proposal in the Bill to add to the disqualification of Members of Parliament and of the Northern Ireland Assembly from membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment? I am not necessarily saying that there is anything wrong with that proposal. However, I am curious to know why it has been put in at this time. I understand that membership of the Territorial Army, which is not the same as the Ulster Defence Regiment but has some comparable features, does not preclude one from being entitled to be a

  481
  Member of this House. Indeed, for a time I was in such a position. I should like to know why this proposal has been made and what lies behind it.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to there being fewer courts martial in future because of the increase in the powers of sentence of commanding officers. That is a desirable reform and will, I hope, as does the right hon. Gentleman, reduce the numbers of courts martial. I think that all of us have experience of instances when courts martial have had to take place when it would have been better for all concerned if they had not.
  I was a little puzzled by the remark that when the higher sentence is to be handed out, it will be necessary for the commanding officer to take legal advice in each case before passing sentence. If it is just that the commanding officer must communicate with some source of legal advice before hearing the case, I can see no objection, but if it means that the commanding officer has to make a determination in the case to the point of passing sentence and then has to remand the case for a further period to get legal advice, that would be a pity from the point of view of the accused and of the swifter administration of justice. I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on that matter in his winding-up speech. We hope that the Bill will be passed, but during its passage other matters will be raised.
  One vital and much wider issue must be raised. The Bill extends the disciplinary powers under which our forces work. I am sure the House will agree that discipline in our forces is of a very high standard, indeed, and is something of which we can be proud. Indeed, no forces could have tackled the immensely difficult tasks facing our forces, particularly in Northern Ireland, if that were not so.
  But discipline is closely linked to morale. Although morale has been excellent in our forces, it cannot be taken for granted. It has already been hit twice this year and it is today seriously threatened again by rumours of still further defence cuts, rumours which have been sweeping through the Press in recent weeks and which the right hon. Gentle-
  482
  man very properly mentioned in his speech. I very much hope that these rumours are ill-founded. If they were true, I should have grave doubts about renewing this legislation for the full five years without further parliamentary scrutiny.
  I shall briefly describe why that is so. Last March we came at last to the conclusion of the defence review. On 3rd December 1974 the Secretary of State described it as
  "the most extensive and thorough review of our system of defence ever undertaken … in peace time."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1974 Vol. 882, c. 1351.]
  Its whole purpose was clearly stated to be to put an end to arbitrary short-term cuts, which were inefficient and which caused great uncertainty, by firmly assessing our essential minimum defence commitments and needs, and to give our defence forces a stable and assured future upon which they could plan ahead.
  Those were fine aims, indeed. But the conclusions of the review were not widely welcomed by all and were thought by many, incidentally, including every one of our NATO allies, to be cutting our contribution to the alliance to dangerously low levels, especially in maritime forces on the flanks of the NATO area. The vehemence of the protests of our allies was so strong that it had to be admitted and printed in the White Paper. The Opposition voiced the concern of many in opposing the White Paper and voting against it in the House. But even we felt that we could take the Government at their word and that the conclusions of the review, unpalatable though they were to us, were at least firm and definite and would provide a stable basis for the future.
  How wrong we were! The ink was hardly dry on the White Paper when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stuck his oar in and coolly announced a further arbitrary and unplanned cut of £110 million in the already severely curtailed defence budget. The right hon. Gentleman announced that without a blush, although it flew straight in the face of everything that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had been saying for the past year.

  483
  On 7th May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said that announcement
  "destroyed at a stroke the whole basis of the Government's White Paper."—[Official Report, 7th May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 1434.]
  We seem to have underestimated the Chancellor, who seems to have taken to bashing defence just as a fractious child can take to bashing his once favourite toy.
  It is still far less than a year since the review was published and we now have Whitehall again buzzing with rumours and leaks which, alas, look to be only too well founded. However, I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman said will be true. The Press, expert opinion, and all our allies are once more expressing the deepest concern. If even half the rumours in the Press are true, the effects on industry and on jobs could be catastrophic. Such cuts would almost certainly affect the MRCA—a vital collaborative project involving Germany and Italy MRCA as well as ourselves. Undoubtedly, too, the maritime Harrier and the through-deck cruiser would be prime targets for cancellation, with serious effects on jobs in development areas. Rumours also abound of the threat of closure of one of the dockyards—possibly Chatham. That, too, would have grave consequences.
  The Government and their supporters must realise before it is too late the dam age which will be done. The Opposition have a clear duty today to put on record the inescapable responsibilities of the Government before it is too late and before decisions are taken. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that no decisions of that kind have yet been taken.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I take it that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Party are resisting cuts in arms spending. But am I not right in saying that they are pressing for cuts in almost everything else? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is most educative. Therefore, may I take it that the hon. Gentleman agrees with his Back Benchers that we should cut housing, education, health, pensions, and the re-equipment of industry, but that arms alone should be sacrosanct?
  Mr. Younger: I shall cover the hon. Gentleman's views at a later stage. When
  484
  he started his intervention, I almost hoped that he had begun to see the light in this matter. It is a great encouragement to me. I hope that I am right.
  I must spell out the Government's responsibilities. First, the Government are responsible in this matter not to the Tribune Group, or even to the Labour Party conference, but to the nation as a whole. We may have to put up with being ruined economically by the most incompetent Government this century, but we cannot allow them to destroy the future security of this country.
  Secondly, there can be no justification whatever on defence grounds for any further reductions in our forces or the weapons that they need to defend us. The Government have spelt out our commitments and needs fully and clearly, and any further cut at all is, by their own definition, cutting into the "bedrock" so graphically described by the Chief of Defence Staff in a recent television interview.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Does my hon. Friend accept that the forces in Ireland are stretched to the utmost, that they are under great strain, that their commitments are far too regular even at the moment, and that any cut in Army personnel would make their commitment in Northern Ireland quite intolerable and unacceptable to their families?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He makes very good sense and is quite right. There is no argument whatever for saying that the world situation and the balance of power have so shifted in our favour that future reductions can now safely be made. The real truth is the absolute reverse of that. There is more insecurity, not less, in the Western alliance since last March, not to mention the continued massive build up of forces by the Warsaw Pact. The Government must give careful consideration to the effect that any further cuts would have on our allies.
  Dr. Luns, Secretary-General of NATO, spoke clearly in his recent address to the North Atlantic Assembly. He spoke of the mutual balanced force reduction negotiations and all the facts which make up the balance between the West and the Warsaw Pact. Dr. Luns may have spoken out, but I am sure that Chancellor Schmidt, and many of our European

  485
  allies, had harsh things to say to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in Rome last week. But what would be the effect on our American allies, with Congress anxious about the level of American involvement in Europe, and election year just beginning? Britain cannot afford to trigger off another round of force reductions throughout the alliance; still less can we allow ourselves to be considered a thoroughly unreliable ally.
  The MBFR talks are still unresolved after a long stalemate. What sense is there in making one-sided reductions in our forces when the whole purpose of the talks is to achieve mutual and balanced force reductions? That is to throw away the whole Western bargaining position for nothing in return. If that is what the Government do, surely our allies can be forgiven for thinking that we have gone mad.
  It is argued that as the economic crisis, which the Government have caused is so severe, the cuts they will have to make must include defence on grounds of fairness with other Departments. I do not know whether to laugh or cry at that argument. Over the past 15 years the percentage of public expenditure devoted to defence has fallen from 17 per cent. to less than 10 per cent., while that of most other Government Departments has soared upwards. Public spending has risen from £33 billion in 1973–74 to £53 billion this year. Even in real terms that amounts to a record 10 per cent. per year increase.
  Yet on defence, let us see what has happened already, before the main weight of the White Paper's cuts have even been felt. We face cuts of from £300 million in 1975–76 rising to £500 million in 1978–79, added to which is a further £110 million in 1976–77, which I mentioned earlier. The latest rumour suggests cuts in public expenditure of over £36 billion a year, of which about one quarter, or £800 million, might come from defence by the end of the decade. So it looks now, if the rumours are correct, as though the further public expenditure cuts will hit defence about twice as hard as other Departments, none of which has been subjected to the rigorous review that defence has undergone over the past year. Even if there were any scope for further cuts, which
  486
  there is not, on grounds of equity alone there would be an overwhelming case for defence to be the last to be cut on this occasion.
  The Secretary of State in his talk to the Staff College on 27th November tried out another argument. He said:
  "We can provide for Defence … only what we can afford to provide. And what we can afford to provide is ultimately a matter of judgment: of political judgment, reflecting, however imperfectly, the will of the people of this country."
  Fine words, indeed, but it seems to me that the Secretary of State was getting refreshingly near to the truth. Of course it is a matter of political judgment, but it is the political judgment of his Government which is both thoroughly faulty and reflects all too imperfectly the will of the people on this subject. He tried to bamboozle his audience by comparing the cost of an aeroplane with that of a school, and the cost of a frigate with that of a hospital. But audiences of that sort are not fooled by such facile comparisons. Why did he not cite the true comparisons?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the people of this country would rather spend their money on nationalising North Sea oil than on having adequate defences? Does he really think the people would rather pay for the Community Land Act and its new model army of bureaucrats than keep the Royal Navy up to strength? Does he really think the people would rather pay for the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries than help those same industries to produce the vital needs of our defence? I do not believe that they would.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: It is with a sense of weariness that I make the point that I have made before. The hon. Member is trying to bamboozle his own audience by confusing transfer costs with defence expenditure which is a real resource cost to the economy.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has been listening too much to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. No serious economist believes with the Prime Minister that there is no resource cost for nationalisation of North Sea oil. Of course there is. That is why the two are very

  487
  much to be compared, certainly in terms of the Government's priority.
  Before giving a Second Reading to the Bill we must make it crystal clear that we are convinced that further defence cuts would be a gross dereliction of the Government's duty, not only to the majority of people who did not elect them, and even some who did, but to all our NATO allies. Well may the corridors of NATO now be reverberating with the cry "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" We make this warning now before it is too late, so that there may be no doubt where we stand. The Government have done many foolish things, but I cannot believe that they will be so irresponsible on this subject as to fly in the face of virtually all responsible opinion throughout the Western world.
  We demand three undertakings from the Government. The first is that no defence cuts will be decided without full prior consultations with our NATO allies. The second is that there will be no unilateral reduction in forces in advance of the MBFR talks. The third is that no cuts will be made below the critical levels in the Defence White Paper, which were said to be the minimum for our defence.
  If the Government cannot give these undertakings they will no longer be able to claim to be steering a middle course between the Opposition and their own left wing. One would be forced to the conclusion that they were increasingly being influenced by those in their midst who seek to overthrow our Western way of life. If these rumours are true, the Government will stand condemned of complete dereliction of their prime duty—to ensure the safety of our land.
  At this stage of the Bill the Government have a duty to the House to try to answer the simple broad questions that I have asked. I conclude by hoping that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are debating the Bill in the most exceptional circumstances. The outburst in Welsh that has just taken place in the Public Gallery seems to reinforce my view that we are debating the
  488
  Bill in exceptional circumstances. I had not expected that to happen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member does not think there is anything personal in what has happened. We are both Welsh.
  Mr. Williams: I acquit you fully of any responsibility for what has happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I think there will be a general welcome in the House for the opportunity which the widening of the debate affords hon. Members to deal with certain speculations in the Press about defence expenditure. My right hon. Friend said today that this is the time of the year when it is normal for the Government to assess current expenditure for next year, and that this is part of the normal process through which the Government have to go.
  We all know that this is a special occasion, because the Cabinet has been meeting for more than a week to assess expenditure for next year, and to judge from what has been published in the newspapers it seems that some horrendous figures have been quoted for the cut-back in Government expenditure. I am talking not merely about defence expenditure but about expenditure overall. Some of the figures that I have heard quoted seem to be overkill. I do not know whether this is so, and I think that the House must make its position clear, so far as it can, on the question of defence expenditure.
  I wish that we could have had a similar opportunity to make our views clear on education, the social services, the provision for welfare services, and so on. We do not have an opportunity to do that this afternoon, but we do have an opportunity to say something about defence expenditure, and I begin my contribution to the debate by saying that defence falls into a special category. In a sense, it is elemental. The security of our nation and the rôle that we play in the Atlantic Alliance is fundamental to the well-being of the country as a whole, and therefore defence falls into a special category. I think that that has been accepted by every Government since the end of the war. They have all recognised our responsibility for collective defence, and I think that the need for that is recognised by the Opposition parties too.

  489
  The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred to the last defence review and I, too, wish to say something about that because it has a direct bearing on my assessment of the future. The House will recall that that defence review was intended to reduce the share of our GNP devoted to defence to about 4½ per cent. to bring us into line with our European allies. It also resulted in a pattern of expenditure in which perhaps 95 per cent. of our effort is to be devoted to NATO, thereby ending for all time for any serious purpose any major British defence intervention outside Europe—something that I warmly welcome.
  I have heard references to cuts in defence of £300 million to over £1,000 million. I know that some of my hon. Friends—and one or two of them are sitting on the Benches below me—have made a case for a cut of £1,000 million in defence expenditure. I have not always been clear about the time scale that my hon. Friends have in mind, but I assume it to be within the next year, or, at any rate, over the next three years.
  As far as I have been able to assess from reports in newspapers—and that is the only way in which one can guess what is going on—there have been proposals for cuts in defence expenditure of a proportion that might alter the contribution that the United Kingdom makes to the North Atlantic Alliance. If some of these reports are true—and there is no way of knowing whether they are—such cuts are bound to have a profound impact on the overall strategy of NATO. This seems to me to be a matter that should not be looked at simply in terms of economy, because it raises profound questions, such as the lowering of the nuclear threshold. We have debated this matter many times, and it has always been my feeling that the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that we should do nothing that would lower the nuclear threshold.
  There seems to be general agreement that there are industrial and manpower implications in major defence cuts, and I would not rule those out as major factors to be considered, particularly as we are at the moment in a deep recession. I warn the Government that if they are contemplating deep cuts in defence—I am not talking about modest cuts which most
  490
  people would agree would call for a contribution from defence spending in these special and dangerous times which face the nation from an economic point of view—they will find themselves in serious trouble.
  My argument is that the defence cuts should not be disproportionate. If the judgment of the Cabinet is that it can afford to make deep cuts in defence, I must tell the Government that there will be great difficulty in justifying such cuts to many working people throughout the country.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would not be good for the nationalisation of the aircraft industry, in which Labour Members believe, if we were to start with major defence cuts there, because that would adversely affect the employment situation in that industry?
  Mr. Williams: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and the same is true of the shipbuilding industry. I think that we had better name names so that people in the constituencies can be alerted. I am thinking of Vickers, Yarrow, Swan Hunter and Cammell Laird. Reference has also been made to the possibility of closing one dockyard. Could it be Chatham or Portsmouth? We do not know, but one thing that is certain is that if the Government were to start to make defence cuts in the range above £300 million to £400 million a year, or over three years, we should have to start thinking about the resulting unemployment situation.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Gentleman mentions figures of £200 million, £500 million or £1,000 million and talks in terms of modest cuts and deep cuts. But the fact on which we should focus is that, whatever the Labour Party may feel that it has a mandate for, it has no manifesto commitment to restructuring those defences which would have a fundamental effect upon our capability within the Western Alliance and of the Alliance as a whole. That is the test that we should apply, rather than tests of crude figure—or even, one is obliged to say, tests such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), relevant though they may be in local terms.
  Mr. Williams: But we are committed in our manifesto—
  Mr. Onslow: Not to ruining NATO.
  Mr. Williams: I am not talking about NATO. We are committed to tackling the problem of inflation, and it would be foolish to pretend that we can do so without some further cut in defence expenditure. That is a fact of life which I accept. What I am arguing with my right hon. Friend about is the magnitude of that cut.
  I am trying to spell out the fact that, if we moved into the range of a £1,000-million cut—that is what has been speculated about outside the House—we should face the serious situation that I am trying to describe.
  Mr. Burden: I think that we would all agree with the hon. Gentleman, which makes it all the more important that the Government should make known their firm intentions as quickly as possible. There is great anxiety among many workers, including dockyard workers, on this issue, and their fears should be treated no less realistically and with no less haste than those of workers in other industries who might also be threatened with cuts. There is grave concern. The Government should act as quickly as possible and come out with a full statement on the issue.
  Mr. Williams: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a special constituency concern.
  What we must do is re-examine our whole attitude to defence. It is no good basing a policy on cutting defence expenditure every time there is an economic difficulty. That may sound sensible. When one makes a speech in a constituency meeting one can get cheap cheers, because it sounds easy and it does not appear immediately to affect any individual. But the truth is the opposite.
  If we go on dealing with this matter piecemeal, we end up with no defence at all. If we are going to cut away and cut away until in the end we have no credible policy, or a strategy which even our allies question—the effect on fellow members of the Alliance must be considered, too—we shall end without a defence policy. We are moving dangerously close to that position. If that is so, it is about time that
  492
  we on these benches had a profound look at defence.
  We need to consider, for example, what we are defending ourselves against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to hear some of my hon. Friends agree, because some of them have the most romantic notions sometimes.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Do not be misled.
  Mr. Williams: The hard and harsh fact upon which our policy must be based is that the Soviet Union is dramatically increasing its military strength.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: So is America.
  Mr. Williams: We need to examine the fact that the Soviet Union, with a gross national product no more than half that of the United States, spends rather more on arms in real terms.
  We must carefully examine the proposition that the resources allocated to defence by several members of the Alliance must represent an exactly equal burden on their economies. I do not think that we can reach a sensible arrangement within an alliance if we apply a slide rule. So my right hon. Friends must make up their minds where they stand on this issue.
  I think that economies are possible and desirable. If we are to make the cuts which have been mooted in other areas, which will affect our people directly and immediately, there has to be a contribution from defence expenditure. But this must be the last such piecemeal cutting of defence—
  Mr. Burden: It is always the last.
  Mr. Williams: If it is not, we are then moving into a situation in which we might even consider scrapping defence entirely. That is how I think that we are moving. Many hon. Members on this side would totally reject that.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: We need it for the tourist trade.
  Mr. Williams: So, in the end, when my right hon. Friend reflects on this matter—I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a chance to read what is said in this debate—he may bear that in mind in any discussions that he has in the Cabinet.

  493
  I want to end with a few words about the Chancellor. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary for a number of years when he was Secretary of State for Defence. I was a great admirer of my right hon. Friend: I think that he was one of the finest Defence Secretaries since the end of the war I saw him at close quarters and could see that he fought in a tough and resolute way against the Treasury. He proved a good fighter for the needs of his Department.
  Now, of course, he is Chancellor of the Exchequer, facing an appalling economic situation. He wants economies and he wants them quickly. I think that he is using his great influence to call for disproportionate cuts in defence. I would say to him, out of the immense respect that I have for him, that he should ponder deeply about this matter. We are talking about the very security of our nation and the future of the Atlantic Alliance, upon which all our prosperity depends.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I hope that I shall be in order, before beginning my speech, in paying tribute to the skilful and expeditious way in which our staff dealt with the brief but unexpected interruption to our proceedings a short time ago. I do not suppose—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of this—that Welsh men or Welsh women are always so easily disposed of.
  The whole House will be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for saying that we can have a debate which goes wider than the terms of the Bill, a Bill which I think is generally welcomed. It is certainly necessary that the House should have an opportunity to express not only our concern about the present state of our defences, but our even greater anxiety about the threatened cuts of which we have all read.
  I think that we all appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams). Within the disciplines in which he necessarily has to operate, he has been brave and outspoken and has shown that these anxieties about defence are to be found in all parties, not just the Conservative Party.
  494
  The Minister of State said, by way of reassurance—I am sure that is how he meant it to be to us—that the current review of defence expenditure is no more than part of the usual annual survey of expenditure. I do not think that that was just a way of dodging the issue. I am sure that he did not mean just to express a few comfortable words. I took his statement—and I am sure other hon. Members did so, too—as an assurance that there would be no immediate announcement about defence cuts and that we could safely await whatever may appear in the course of next year's annual defence review. All hon. Members appreciated his assurance about his personal position in this matter. He could hardly have expressed it more clearly.
  Commenting on the intervention of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), it is more than just the view of the Conservative Party that defence is the fundamental obligation of Government to the governed. That is not a principle from which we should be prepared to depart. It is the view of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of many of our NATO allies that the defence review cuts went too far, even before the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed that arbitrary and inexplicable cut of over £110 million in this year's Budget. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), in his robust speech from the Conservative Front Bench, has spoken for all Conservative Members and many others when he made it perfectly clear that we shall oppose as rigorously as we can, in this House and outside, any further reduction in our defence forces.
  Our cuts have been in striking contrast to the constant growth, in both absolute and relative terms, in Soviet military capabilities. The hon. Member for Horn-church has exposed the fallacy in the argument of judging defence by percentages of gross national expenditure. Certainly that argument is torn asunder by the letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) had published in The Times yesterday.
  In terms of troops, tanks, guns and aircraft, the Warsaw Pact Powers now far outnumber those of the Western Alliance and the disparity is growing. We cannot fail to notice it. These forces, as Field

  495
  Marshal Sir Michael Carver, Chief of Defence Staff, said at the end of July, are
  "far in excess of what they need for their own defence".
  It is no wonder that at that time he said—and this is a warning which we must all heed, both inside and outside this House—
  "Any further cuts, and the seriousness of our support for NATO would be brought into question."
  Only yesterday Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton gave a further warning against defence cuts. Speaking as chairman of NATO's military committee, he was in the somewhat invidious position of pointing out to our allies—and the warning must include Britain—that
  "Unless they were prepared to pay the premium for stalwart conventional defence there would be an erosion of military capability leading to a lowering of the nuclear threshold."
  That is, indeed, a grim warning.
  Nor can we be indifferent to the way in which Soviet naval forces now straddle all our vital shipping routes. The development of Soviet power politics at sea is, perhaps, even more alarming than the threat of confrontation and continual growth of Soviet strength in central Europe. The northern and southern flanks of NATO and the NATO command in the North Atlantic have already been seriously weakened. As this year's Defence White Paper points out:
  "The maritime balance has shifted, and is continuing to shift, markedly in favour of the Warsaw Pact. In the Eastern Atlantic Area NATO's mainly British maritime forces at immediate readiness for forward defence are already outnumbered. The Soviet Navy has expanded out of all proportion to Soviet seaborne trade."
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I like Soviet armed forces no more than he does and no more than I like American armed forces. However, he is ignoring the question: is it not a fact that NATO spends more on defence than the Warsaw Pact, that its nuclear capacity far exceeds that of the Warsaw Pact and that its naval forces are nearly twice those, despite increasing naval forces, of the Warsaw Pact?
  Mr. Rippon: I respect the hon. Gentleman's motive, but he lives in cloudcuckooland when it comes to military
  496
  defence and the respective balance of power in the world today on land, in the air and at sea.
  The British Government have to bear in mind that it is now admitted that the Royal Navy could not, on its own, in future provide any sort of adequate defence for our merchant shipping. That is our responsibility. We know that Soviet naval power is far in excess of what the Soviet Union needs for that purpose, whereas ours is far less than we need for that simple defensive purpose.
  Against such a background, the Government's decision to abandon the Simonstown Agreement never made any sort of sense to me or to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, any more than does their continual failure to recognise the threat that now exists in the Southern Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. It makes completely incomprehensible already the reduction in the Nimrod force by a quarter and the reduction in the RAF's helicopter force. I want to quote from the recently published "RUST and Brassays Defence Yearbook", which sums up the situation in this way:
  "From an Air Force viewpoint, the reduction imposed and described in the 1975 Defence White Paper cannot fail to threaten its operational strength; reduce its logistic capability; and impair its flexibility, its attraction as a career and its morale."
  That is a devastating comment, but unfortunately it is manifestly true.
  Meanwhile, we read in The Times of a NATO intelligence report which not only deals with the growing Soviet presence in Aden and Somalia and its activities in Africa but points out the increasing Soviet ability to exert power in distant areas. Apparently, during world-wide Soviet naval exercises last spring Soviet aircraft operated from Cuba, Guinea, Somalia and Aden. In face of those facts, the idealism, however well motivated, of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) simply makes no sense at all. It is true that we still retain—and this is all we can say—our treaty commitment to the British Army of the Rhine, perhaps because it is so clearly a treaty commitment. However, we have done so only by the constant reduction in our home-based mobile forces.
  Against that background, we can say with absolute conviction to the people of

  497
  Britain that there is no more room for any further reduction in our defence capability. Hon. Members have a duty to awaken the British people to the threat which now exists to their security. We have to do so, however unwelcome that truth may be. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, there are certain sections of the community in which some hon. Members can get a cheap cheer if they advocate defence cuts, but we know what was said about Governments that did not keep us adequately prepared before the last war—and then the state of our defences was immensely better than it is today.
  No doubt we can still shelter under the umbrella of the United States' contribution to European defence, both in terms of its strength in Europe and—this is, perhaps, increasingly important—in terms of its growing capability to reinforce Europe. However, I do not believe that the American people will continue to pay such a disproportionately high amount of money per head compared with us in Britain and those in the rest of Europe if we do not show that we are prepared to do something more effective to help ourselves.
  We must not be lulled into some false sense of security by all the talk of détente and the signing of the Helsinki Agreement. Of course, the seeking of détente is a precondition of the Atlantic Alliance. Nevertheless détente, however mutually desirable and sensible—and I think it is to the advantage of the Soviet Union as well as ourselves—remains an idea. But the tanks and submarines remain facts—awkward and uncomfortable facts, and facts that we cannot ignore. When those tanks and submarines are beaten into the ploughshares that the Soviet harvest shows that the Soviets evidently need, then, and only then, can we perhaps begin to relax.
  Not even the publication in Pravda of the whole of the Helsinki Agreement has meant the keeping of the promise even of religious freedom. That was surely clear to anyone who heard the broadcast on Sunday morning. Moreover, the build-up of Soviet forces in Angola must strike something of a chill in the heart of even the hon. Member for Salford, East. The plain truth remains that in negotiating treaties with totalitarian regimes we can never afford to forget that the faithful are
  498
  always bound and the faithless are always free.
  I can understand why the hon. Member for Hornchurch—naturally, from personal reasons—paid his tribute to his former chief. I cannot share and never have shared his regard for that right hon. Gentleman. As Secretary of State for Defence between 1964 and 1970, he presided over a continuous process of retreat—against the pledges that had been made earlier—in South-East Asia and in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere. He claimed then, of course, to be a great European; there was the great future. He did not take such a view when in Opposition. There is no right hon. Gentleman in this House who has a better record, or a worse record—however one puts it—for rat, re-rat and rat again, than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. No man in this House has done more to undermine British interests and British influence in the world.
  This year, what has happened? No doubt following pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—this great guardian of British defence interests—we have had the halving of our long-range air transport force, the withdrawal of the Nimrods and helicopters from Singapore, the closure of Gan, and the removal of the permanently-based squadrons in Cyprus in spite of all the difficulties that exist in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the further weakening in the strength and morale of CENTO. Now it seems that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great guardian of British interests, is pressing for further cuts on top of those imposed first in the defence review and then in the Budget.
  Therefore, let us not mince words at this stage. The Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in the Cabinet have a heavy responsibility to stop the Chancellor from pursuing what has long been his policy—an abject, squalid, shameless betrayal of British interests. So do the Opposition have such a responsibility. It is a duty that rests always, continually, on every hon. Member, regardless of party, to ensure that we pay this essential insurance premium—as Sir Peter Hill-Norton put it—for the survival of Britain as an independent nation. We all ought to stand firm against any sort of further erosion in our defence forces.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been making a rather fierce and ill-considered attack upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has referred, among other things, to my right hon. Friend's period of office as Secretary of State for Defence. I wonder whether he would tell the House what of the various things which the present Chancellor did while Secretary of State for Defence was reversed by the subsequent Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member?
  Mr. Rippon: The trouble about these withdrawals of forces is that it is very hard to put back the clock. There has been a continual erosion of defence. But certainly we did our best. I made my views about the present Chancellor perfectly clear when he was Secretary of State for Defence, and I have not changed my mind. It was not an ill-considered attack. It was deliberate.
  The time has come for the Government and for this House to end what has been for too long the continual sacrifice of the future to the present.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The Bill before us is of great interest, but even greater interest has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House in its context, that context being the bill for the military programme. I share that interest, but from a diametrically opposite angle to that of the Conservative Front Bench.
  The Press reports acute controversy within the Cabinet over proposed cuts in defence expenditure. An extraordinary campaign is being waged in the Press, particularly the quality Press and even more particularly the Daily Telegraph. The Conservative newspapers are clamouring against there being any arms cut at all. Conservative Members, panting to cut almost everything else, are passionately against reduced arms spending. Even senior Service officers have participated—contrary to what I thought was a long-established practice that they, like senior civil servants, should not make public statements on politically controversial issues.
  At present the struggle within the Cabinet has not yet been decided, appar-
  500
  ently. Whoever wins the present round, in the end drastic arms cuts—and I emphasise the word "drastic"—will have to come. Harsh economic reality plus the pressure of the Labour movement and the trade union movement will see to that There will have to be a second defence review, and the longer it is delayed the greater will be the hardship that we shall have to endure.
  Mr. Burden: I do not know whether it is because of a lapse of memory on the part of the hon. Gentleman or convenient forgetfulness of the facts, but he should know that the simple facts are that the defence forces have already been cut very drastically indeed whereas expenditure on other services has increased enormously.
  Mr. Allaun: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because in about two minutes' time I shall show that there have not been any cuts in the bill for the Armed Forces. The hon. Gentleman may interrupt me at that point.
  I claim to speak for millions of ordinary people in this country and to echo the view of the Labour Party conference, that of the TUC, expressed only a month ago, and that of many other Labour Members, when I say that there must be a real and drastic reduction of spending on the military programme rather than reduction in spending on housing, health, education, pensions, the social services, War on Want and re-equipment of our industry. That is what our General Election manifesto declared. The Secretary of State for Defence was present at the meeting between the Cabinet and the National Executive of the Labour Party which drafted that statement.
  Speaking for myself, I have to say that I am opposed to a single penny being cut from services which maintain the living standards of ordinary families. Conservative Members are clamouring for exactly the reverse. They want less for welfare and more for warfare. A few minutes ago when I said that they wanted these cuts they said "Yes" almost unanimously. I hope that that will be remembered. They are talking about reductions not only in the nationalised industries but in the areas that I have mentioned.
  Labour candidates declared at the General Election that they would reduce the proportion of the nation's resources

  501
  devoted to defence to bring it into line with that of our main European allies. I have the permission of Dr. Frank Blackaby, Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, to quote from a paper that he has just written. He was asked to say what cut in United Kingdom military expenditure would be needed to bring down the United Kingdom percentage of military expenditure in terms of the gross national product to the average figure of our main European allies by 1979. His answer was that it would have to be cut by about a third in real terms from the 1974 level. Dr. Blackaby writes:
  "That is a cut of £1,400 million, at 1974 prices, on the NATO definition of United Kingdom military expenditure."
  He points out that the German and French proportions have been trending down, and he has taken account of that trend in his calculations. His figure of £1,400 million in savings is also based on a central assumption of a United Kingdom growth in the domestic product of 2·9 per cent. per annum. If we fail to reach that rate of growth we shall need a further reduction in arms spending to come down to the same proportion as the other countries.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: Is it to be assumed from what the hon. Gentleman says that eventually we shall have no forces at all? Is he advocating that we should have no armed forces? Is that what he wishes to say?
  Mr. Allaun: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to my argument. I have been outlining what the result would be in cash terms if we came down to the level of our main European NATO allies. I think that he should have followed that.
  What could not the present Government or any Government do with £1,400 million a year? What a transformation of life that would mean for the homeless, for those who cannot find a nursery school for their children and, for the housebound, the elderly and the disabled who are desperately seeking a home help. Instead, the public are faced with a threat of worsening living standards and conditions. Once again we are faced with the old question of whether we are to have houses or H-bombs.
  502
  I hope that Conservative Members will not think that it is a handful of Labour Members who say that if there is to be a choice the choice should be houses.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, will no doubt reply, in view of his letter to The Times yesterday, that our gross national product is lower than that of either France or Germany. That is exactly my point. Our industry is doing badly and it needs to be devoted to productive rather than to military purposes. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect a poorer country to devote a higher proportion of its wealth to arms than a more prosperous nation. Surely not even the most reactionary Conservative Member would ask a man on a low income to pay a higher rate of income tax than someone with a top income.
  To take up the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), vast armed forces do not provide security. A dozen hydrogen bombs delivered on our country would decimate the centres of population and the dying would envy the dead. There is no weapon that the right hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else on this earth has devised which can prevent the delivery of hydrogen bombs by missile. There is no military security to be obtained by doubling, trebling or quadrupling our arms expenditure and completely bankrupting the nation.
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just said is the exposition of the deterrent argument? It is precisely appreciation of that very point by the Soviet Union—namely, the ability of the NATO forces to present a deterrent—that circumscribes its potential military aggression?
  Mr. Allaun: No, I do not think so. The more nuclear weapons there are in the hands of more and more countries the greater is the danger to mankind of war by accident. Further, there is the danger of the bomb getting into the hands of a fanatical dictator who may well be prepared to use it even if he knows of the consequences in the form of retaliation.
  Moreover, great armaments do not reduce the danger of war but increase

  503
  international tension. If a Government of any nation slow down their arms spending, that helps towards detente. Conversely, the announcement of growth and expansion by any country helps to accentuate suspicion and antagonism, inducing other countries in turn to increase their military programmes. It is that sort of arms race which makes war inevitable, as Lord Grey, the Foreign Secretary in 1914, wrote about the outbreak of the First World War when writing in retrospect.
  In all the propaganda now being unleashed on the Britsh public against the reduction of arms—and it is considerable—reference is persistently made to the cuts that have already been made. We have heard about these cuts several times this afternoon. We are told that a cut of £4,700 million will be imposed over the next 10 years. That is balderdash. To talk of further cuts is deliberate nonsense. Mention was made of those cuts in an Early-Day Motion a couple of days ago. That was complete and deliberate nonsense.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is quoting the Government's own figures and not anything that has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends?
  Mr. Allaun: But it has been said from the Conservative Benches. The Secretary of State has said it and it has been accepted as gospel, although we know it is untruthful, by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are lying?
  Mr. Allaun: I am saying that it is deliberate nonsense. I shall demonstrate that arms spending is increasing and not decreasing.
  The Secretary of State has admitted that arms spending will be increasing by £200 million a year within two years. It is planned to remain at that record level for the succeeding seven years. That is arms spending in real terms. In cash terms, thanks to inflation, there is a colossal increase. In those terms it has risen from £2,768 million four years ago to £4,975 million so far this year. An increase of nearly £400 million was passed without any great commotion only a few days ago.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: There was not a squeak from the Opposition.
  Mr. Allaun: My hon. Friend is right. The alleged saving of £4,700 million in 10 years is spurious. It relates solely to what the Conservative Government considered three years ago in a different economic climate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, there has been an increase in the price of oil and other items since then. It also relates solely to what that Government considered three years ago, in a very different economic climate, might be spent on military programmes 10 years hence. I doubt whether even a Conservative Government could have fulfilled it.
  Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman try to be fair in his argument? He is advancing a strange case. He says that the forward defence programme is being cut but the money is not being reduced and there is no actual reduction. Would he say the same about housing if the Government were to announce reductions in large forward programmes for increasing the housing stock? Would he say that that would involve no reduction in money terms, and would he say that the Government by adopting that course would not cut the number of houses?
  Mr. Allaun: There is some point in the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, that does not answer my point that the arms bill in real terms is being increased rather than reduced. The reality lies in what I have said.
  Finally, the men and women affected are entitled to be found alternative work. I think that there is much greater concern on that aspect among some Labour Members than among Conservatives.
  Mr. Burden: Not at all.
  Mr. Allaun: Recently the Shop Stewards Committee at Lucas Aerospace, who represent 17 factories, and at Rolls-Royce and Vickers have been carefully considering alternative civil work. Among the 150 projects they think could be useful and profitable are such items as battery-driven cars, buses and lorries; short take-off aircraft for civil use; advanced medical equipment; plant for the oil industry; and the adaptation of gas turbine jets for use in ships.

  505
  It would be far better that the £600 million a year we are now wasting on military research and development be transferred to those and other peaceful projects. It is mainly because Japan has devoted less than 1 per cent. of her gross national product to arms that she has become so powerful industrially and so successful in sweeping the markets of the world. We should learn from her experience.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I find it difficult to make up my mind whether the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is sincere in his views. He sets them out in such a charming way that one does not at first appreciate how outrageous they are. Nevertheless, I am certain that his speech will be read with a great deal more attention in the Kremlin than it is here in London.
  When the hon. Gentleman said that he speaks for millions of people, I ask him not to delude himself. He speaks largely for himself. The people of this country will not be deluded by cheap little slogans such as "Less for welfare, more for warfare". We know, and the country knows, that our arms are there to prevent war, not to wage it. I take it that in logic the hon. Gentleman favours the abolition of our forces, although he does not say so. It is not for me to defend Her Majesty's Government in the matter of reductions, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that reductions on the ground in the forces are very real. Even on his own calculations deployed in his speech if we are considering the expenditure level over a period of eight or 10 years, inflation will mean a large reduction in resources.
  Perhaps I should make a genuflection in the direction of the Bill that we are supposed to be discussing this afternoon. I am sure the Minister in replying to the debate will wish to say a few words on the legislation.
  I should like to mention one point about discipline. The discipline of the Gurkhas is on a slightly traditional basis compared to our other forces, although those forces are run on the same military lines. I wonder why we regard the Gurkha forces as being so different from our own domestic forces. I also wonder whether we can now justify, on racist or
  506
  other grounds, not using the Gurkhas in the same way as we deploy our own forces. The Gurkhas are now based mainly in Hong Kong, but there is an argument that United Kingdom units sent to Hong Kong might provide a better political background. There is nothing peculiar about service in Hong Kong that so fits the Gurkha, to the exclusion of other forces. The excellent discipline and impeccable conduct of the Gurkhas in all circumstances would make them extremely good troops for use in other parts of the world rather than only in the specialised areas in which they ar now serving.
  I have said before in these debates, anti I say again, that I believe the approach to defence by the Labour Government to be fundamentally wrong. They begin by judging what resources should be allocated to defence. They then go on to look at the dangers which these resources must confront. I am not saying that every threat and danger we face in the world must be met by the United Kingdom alone, but we must be given an estimate of that threat before we can sensibly allocate resources to it.
  The Labour Government, in discussing defence matters, always seek to say that the threat is not as great as people think. Some people, such as the hon. Member for Salford, East, imply that the threat is virtually non-existent. How can they honestly take that view? Who could pretend that the Soviet Union's position since the Helsinki meeting has become any more accommodating to the West? The international scene, far from being more peaceful, daily grows more dangerous. The Russian navy continues to grow. It is not true to say that the Russian navy is less powerful than the Western navies. It is true that Russian units are not so numerous, but they have the most modern and the most powerful navy in the world. In regard to other Soviet forces the lethality of their weapons and the complexity of technique becomes greater every year. The Russians have large conventional forces. They also have a system of conscription lasting at least two years, and sometimes longer for specialised troops—far beyond what is needed for the defence of Russia.
  Around the world the Russians have concentrated their forces in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Thus, they threaten

  507
  our communications with North America and our supplies, especially oil supplies from other parts of the world. The Russians operate from bases in Africa, Aden, Somalia, Guinea and Cuba. They are today engaged virtually in active operations in Angola and Lebanon. Although the position in Portugal has temporarily improved, it is still uncertain. That is the real world in which we live. A world in which there is no danger of aggression is a dream world. Either it lives in imagination or there are ulterior motives for its alleged existence.
  Therefore, I am anxious that the cuts we all know about will not be followed by other cuts. Already our forces are too small. They face all the difficulties involved in bung over-stretched, and there are also considerations of morale, training and general efficiency. Our reserves are far fewer—as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said in his letter to The Times—than those of our allies. We rely on our allies far more than they rely on us. The training of our troops and their weapons, although there are some gaps in equipment, are excellent, but we cannot be satisfied with the overall state of our forces.
  We are coming close to a situation in which, if there are any more cuts, the whole complex of our defensive measures will be called in question. Further reductions will mean that the Navy will hardly be more than a coastal force, the Army will become a gendarmerie, and the Royal Air Force, if denied aircraft and weapons in the next generation, will not be able to take the field at all because it will be totally ineffective and a waste of money. Our missiles are already well out of date compared with those of possible opponents.
  Our armaments industry makes an important contribution to employment and exports. Drastic reductions will do enormous harm to one and possibly irreparable damage to the other. Who would wish to buy our arms if we do not buy them for ourselves? It cannot be maintained that we cannot afford even the little we do at present. The real measure of the burden of arms expenditure is not the absolute cash figure but what that means per head of the population, and on this criterion we are falling rapidly behind comparable countries.
  508
  It has been said in the past that the public takes no interest in defence, but I believe that that is changing. We are brought to realise more and more at home and abroad how the world is getting rougher. The police, the Armed Forces and the resolution of our people stand between us and anarchy. The people have the resolution. If the Government fail in their duty to provide protection, both civil and military, they risk the disintegration of society and will be judged harshly for their folly and neglect.
  It would not be the first time that a British Government, in a long period of peace, had neglected our defences, but in this age when Britain is no longer a sea-girt fortress, gambling with our future in this way is something which honest and patriotic men would not do.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Carson: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the problems facing the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland. At this festive season, the sympathy, thoughts and prayers of many hon. Members will be with the families and friends of the members of our forces and the part-time soldiers who have been killed or injured in Northern Ireland. Last week, there were headlines about detainees being released from the Maze prison. They call themselves the Irish Republican Army and have vowed that their fight against our soldiers will continue. These men of violence will have the privilege of being at home for Christmas. Many of our boys, our soldiers, will not be at home for Christmas, and if the men of violence had their way some of these men and boys would never come back to this country alive.
  Every hon. Member should be made aware of the seriousness of the situation facing the Army and the UDR in Northern Ireland. I have visited soldiers at Albert Street mill, Flax Street mill and other places to see the conditions in which they have to live. The conditions are deplorable. We have heard about conditions in such prisons as the Maze, but I have not often heard hon. Members speaking loudly and clearly about the very bad conditions under which soldiers in Northern Ireland have to live.

  509
  The lives of these soldiers are at risk every day. Evil men lurk on roadsides and behind walls, setting explosives and trying to kill them. I am often out in my constituency and I see other dangers facing the Army, among them the difficulties of enforcing road blocks. I have often seen them manning road blocks on cold, wet nights without adequate lighting facilities. They frequently have only a small torch with which to signal cars to stop, and soldiers have been killed or seriously injured because of the conditions in which they have to work. It is important that they should have the proper equipment at road blocks and a proper lighting system for times when they have to stop and search cars.
  The UDR was formed for the defence of Northern Ireland against terrorists who seek to destroy it as a part of the United Kingdom. It has been suggested to me that the regiment was formed to fill a vacuum or to compensate the majority community for the loss of the B Specials. Had the regiment been formed for that reason, I would say that it should be disbanded, for it would be a waste of money and of the men's time. In fact, the regiment is a very efficient force. I use my influence as much as possible in both the majority and minority communities to try to get people to join the regiment.
  But I have visited some UDR barracks and I have found a feeling of frustration and helplessness from the rank of major right down through the ranks. They feel that they are like deep-litter hens, confined to barracks and unable to do their job properly.
  The Government spent thousands of pounds on Press and television advertisements urging people to join the UDR to guard their own areas. Yet when UDR men from my constituency finish a hard day's work, they are asked to leave North Belfast and to travel five miles to East Belfast, an area with which they are not familiar. They do not know the residents or the layout of the district. They are helpless in trying to defend the area. I have been asked by UDR men to express their deep concern at being asked to go into areas which they do not know because that prevents them from carrying out their duties properly.
  510
  I am also concerned about the discharge of a number of UDR officers throughout Northern Ireland. Many of my constituents tell me that they have been discharged from the UDR, but have been given no reason. We are told that the information is withheld for their own safety, but in a place such as Northern Ireland, particularly in the country areas, everyone knows what everyone else is doing. People know when a man is in the UDR and they know when he has been discharged, and that prompts them to ask questions. I believe that it is in the interests of the men and their families that" they should be told why they have been discharged.
  The deployment of the Ulster Defence Regiment has led to feelings of frustration and helplessness in the UDR in its attempts to carry out its duty. The UDR was formed to protect Northern Ireland from its enemies, and it should be used to do that job. I have here a document which details certain areas in which the UDR cannot operate. These areas include Newtown Abbey, Rathcoole, Whitehouse, Whiteabby, Bally Henry, Ballyduff, Monkstown and part of Green-island. Bawnmore is out, and that is a strong Republican area. The Girdwood areas are Antrim Road above Fort William, Ballysillan, Ballygomartin and Shankill away from the peace line. Hon. Members will have heard about the peace line. The UDR cannot go near it. The 10th battalion of the UDR, which is stationed at Girdwood barracks, is not allowed to go near the New Lodge Road. Its members must leave the barracks by the back gate and carry out a two-mile detour. The nearest they can go to the Antrim Road, which comes down to the New Lodge Road—another strong Republican area—is Fort William, which is about one mile away. It would take them no more than five minutes to go through the front gates and to use a more direct route, but that is contrary to their orders. This sort of restriction prevents the UDR from doing the job it has been given to do.
  The Army has done a tremendous job in Northern Ireland and I support it in every way. I hope that the Government will consider providing better living conditions for the troops, and I hope, too, that people will give the troops every

  511
  possible comfort during the Christmas period.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. John Roper: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) has spoken vividly of the situation in Northern Ireland. I do not have the experience to reply to his points in detail, but I believe that in the circumstances in which our troops are operating in Northern Ireland we can be proud of their high morale and their high state of discipline, both of which they maintain in the face of considerable difficulties.
  I intend to be somewhat eccentric in the debate in that, unlike a number of other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, I shall deal with the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member was not here earlier when I explained that Mr. Speaker had agreed—I believe with the understanding of both sides of the House—that this should be a wide debate.
  Mr. Roper: I was in no way criticising those who have gone wider than the terms of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that those who had heard the rest of the debate might be somewhat surprised if I addressed myself to the Bill.
  It is a measure of considerable importance, in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has adopted a Cardwellite manner that is appropriate to a Liverpudlian. I think that Edward Cardwell was also born in Liverpool. While those of us from Manchester have not agreed with everything which is done from Liverpool, certainly the Cardwellite precedents in these matters are good ones.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Edward Cardwell also represented a Lancashire seat.
  Mr. Roper: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information, but we had better not pursue the history of the matter too far, or we might go beyond even the wide scope that Mr. Speaker has permitted for the debate.
  This is an important Bill from a constitutional point of view and for the conditions applying to those who serve in the Armed Forces. They must always be the concern of this House. The Bill marks a further step in reconciling the individual
  512
  rights of those in the Services and those associated with the Services—including the civilians, and all their families—with the necessities of Service life.
  It is important that we have a quinquennial opportunity to examine these matters, and we have the rare opportunity to do it by means of a Select Committee rather than a Standing Committee considering a Bill. This is a very desirable method, which, perhaps, we could use more widely. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has announced that the arrangement will be repeated on this occasion. I believe it is right to have a Select Committee for these matters. This is something that was secured by my noble Friends Lord Wigg and Lord Paget of Northampton, when Members of this House, through various complicated manoeuvres in the early 1950s. The House should be grateful to them for what they did in creating a procedure that is singularly appropriate for matters of this sort.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the recommendation of the 1954 Select Committee about the procedure that should be followed in treating this matter. I understand that it recommended that there was no longer a need for an annual review, but that the matter should be treated by the quinquennial process, and this has been done. However, the Government in 1955, and successive Governments, have permitted the House, by means of the affirmative procedure, to have a debate each year if that is desired, and certainly to vote upon these matters.
  This is an important constitutional matter. It goes back to one of the oldest principles of this House—the fact that the House should have the right not merely to vote Supply but to vote annually on the maintenance of a standing Army. My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall that when we were debating this matter last, in 1971, Mr. George Thomson, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in the debate on 13th January 1971, quoted from "Erskine May"—an earlier edition, but the same words appear in the current edition—and made it quite clear that
  "By the procedure laid down in the legislation of 1955, the Commons, in addition to their control over the number of the naval, military and air forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated for their support, reserve

  513
  to themselves the power of determining whether a standing army shall be kept in being in time of peace."
  Technically, we maintain that power, as we shall do tonight by passing the Order. Therefore, when the Select Committee considers Clause 1, which suggests a new procedure in future, I hope it will consider very carefully the historic precedents and not automatically accept the view put forward by my right hon. Friend earlier in the debate.
  Turning from that constitutional point to more substantive points on the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in replying, will be able to reassure us on several points in detail. We have, in Clause 2, a new power whereby the Secretary of State can make Regulations that will enable a person's full-time or Reserve service not only to be extended but also to be reduced. At a time when there is a good deal of uncertainty in the Armed Forces as to how secure a career this is, the fact that the Secretary of State is taking power to enable the length of a person's service in the Armed Forces to be reduced may be misunderstood. It might appear that people, having assumed that they were serving for, let us say, 10, 12 or even 22 years, under the Regulations that the Secretary of State may make under this clause, would find their period of service reduced. I trust that I have misunderstood this point, but I think there is a danger that there could be uncertainty and doubt in the Armed Forces, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that.
  The major clauses are in Part II of the Bill—first in Clause 5, dealing with the increases in the sentencing powers available to commanding officers, and then in Clauses 6 to 9, dealing with the creation of a new structure of jurisdiction for civilians serving with the Armed Forces abroad. I should like to raise a number of points on those two matters.
  As my right hon. Friend explained, the obvious intention of Clause 5 is to reduce the number of courts martial. There are many arguments in favour of doing this—not merely administrative arguments but arguments in the interests of the individual who is standing trial. But there are possible arguments in the other direction. As I understand it, while
  514
  a Service man appearing before his commanding officer under summary jurisdiction is not allowed to have representation, when he goes to a court martial he is so entitled.
  There is, therefore, a possible reduction in the rights of a Service man by this procedure whereby more matters will be considered under summary jurisdiction and fewer under the court martial procedure. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can give me some information on this point, or whether it is a matter that a Select Committee might wish to consider with more care. I noted what my right hon. Friend said about safeguards, but nevertheless I think that we ought to consider the matter a little further.
  There is a further point in relation to the increase in the powers to fine—to increase the number of days' pay to be forfeited from 14 to 28. In the last decade there has already been, implicitly a rather significant increase in the real power to fine. In 1969, when the Armed Forces went across to the military salary there was a substantial once-and-for-all real increase in the value of a day's pay. Therefore, the forfeiture of 14 days' military salary was considerably more, as a penalty, than the forfeiture of 14 days pay was prior to the introduction of the military salary. I wonder whether, when my hon. Friends were considering this increase, they took into account the implicit increase in the fine that could be imposed when the military salary was introduced in 1969.
  Turning to the clause dealing with the trial of civilians who are either serving with the Services or who are members of families of Service personnel, I am sure that the provisions are extremely useful and will ease the difficult situation which may sometimes occur. I shall however, be interested to know whether my hon. Friend can indicate which persons are likely to be selected to serve on the juvenile bench—whether they will be lay magistrates rather than the stipendiary magistrates who are referred to in Clause 6(6), and, also, which persons are likely to be the civilian members of courts martial referred to in Clause 8. Will they be people like the command NAAFI major, or will there be other civilians serving with the Forces overseas who will be appropriate to be included on these occasions?

  515
  Perhaps my hon. Friend will also tell me whether the appeal from the civilian courts which are being introduced in Clause 6 will be to a court martial, or whether there will be another method of appeal.
  I have spent a little time on these matters because I think they are points of importance to which we should have answers before we give a Second Reading to a Bill which I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House regard as of considerable importance.
  I should now like to spend a few minutes referring to the wider issues that have been raised in the debate. It is foolish and irresponsible to suggest that there can never be any more defend cuts. That decision would get any party that adopted it into a great deal of difficulty. I believe that what my right hon Friend said is indeed the view of the Government—and, I hope, of many on the Government Benches—that we must consider our forces in the light of the commitments that we have accepted together with our allies in NATO. Certainly our commitments under the Brussels Treaty must be honoured, and those of us who serve in the Assembly and in Western European Union know how seriously those are regarded by our partners within Western European Union.
  I agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams), but I am a little less sure about my agreement with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). I have not yet had a chance to read or study the interesting document to which he referred which has been prepared by Mr. Blackaby, the Deputy-Director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. I shall study it with great care when it becomes available.
  It is somewhat dangerous for us to play overmuch with statistics in these matters. We have to consider what sort of forces we need in the light of our commitments and in the light of the threat that faces us. We must also be very careful about making promises on the sort of transfers that can be made between different sectors of public expenditure.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could allow spending to in-
  516
  crease in areas such as housing or nursery schools, to the extent of incurring any reductions in defence spending. From all that one has heard from the Cabinet, that would seem to be most unlikely.
  In talking to a number of trade unionists in my constituency, my experience is that they are more concerned about the possible effects of defence cuts upon jobs in a situation in which we already have far too many people unemployed. Certainly this has to be taken into account in attempting to come to a judgment.
  I have confidence that my right hon. Friends will not be short-sighted in coming to a decision on these matters but will consider what is appropriate, and will not in any way put our country's security at risk.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I apologise to the Minister for not being able to be in the Chamber for the whole of his speech in opening the debate. Other pressing matters prevented me from being here. I also apologise in advance if I raise any points relating to the Bill that the Minister may have covered already in his speech.
  My first point is that referred to by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) in relation to Clause 1, in Part I. His interpretation is somewhat different from mine, and I hope that some clarification will be given in the winding-up speech.
  I understand that the Defence Council can, by Regulation, make provision under present legislation enabling a person to extend his service. Under the Bill it will be possible for a person to reduce the term of his service. I think that this can be welcomed in the context that it provides for special instances on compassionate grounds, particularly in cases where people with long-term engagements find that home problems prevent them from carrying out their duties properly. It would give them a chance to have their term of service reduced, thereby enabling them to deal with very pressing human and domestic commitments.
  Clause 9, in Part II, relates to the trial and punishment of juveniles. Subsection (3) states that
  "A person convicted of murder who was under 18 years of age when the offence was

  517
  committed shall not be sentenced to imprisonment for life, nor shall sentence of death be pronounced on or recorded against a person convicted of any offence".
  That is an interesting provision. To my knowledge, sentence of death can be passed only in the case of treason. I hope that the Minister will deal with this point in winding up, and also refer to the wide powers which the clause vests in the Secretary of State in deciding on the type of sentence, the length of sentence, and where it may be served. The Secretary of State makes the final decision. I hope that the recommendation of the court will be considered and taken into account. Perhaps some comment will be made on that matter later.
  I very much welcome the opportunity to debate defence in the wider context, because many people serving in our Armed Forces today are wondering what sort of future there is for them.
  Press reports of further impending cuts in defence expenditure can only have a demoralising effect. The Government have a great responsibility to ensure that unfounded rumours are not only scotched, but scotched early enough to prevent the loss of morale and the demoralising effect that these rumours engender.
  It is appropriate that we should be discussing a Bill dealing with discipline, because it is about time that the Government showed a bit more discipline themselves in sticking to their word. We have had what has been classed as one of the most far-reaching peace-time reviews of defence expenditure and defence commitments. That was followed by the comprehensive defence review, which is to cut our defence expenditure by £4,700 million in the next 10 years. This imposed a discipline on spending by the Armed Forces which, I believe, was one of the most arduous tasks the forces have had to face since the last war.
  If the Government had put before the House a plan for cuts in Government spending right across the board in all other sectors at the same time as they made their comprehensive review of defence expenditure, I believe that we would have given them our support. We have now reached a situation in which rumours of further defence cuts are flowing again—something that would be quite intolerable in present circumstances. It
  518
  would have been a very different matter if much earlier action had been taken to cut Government expenditure. We would not then be in our present situation of chronic financial mismanagement.
  The letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) wrote to The Times underlined the sort of expenditure that we are making per head. It is now equivalent to that made by Belgium.
  Our forces derive their high esteem, their standards and their performance from long-term defence planning, with our Allies and with NATO, which provides them with their future pattern and enables them to see what sort of promotion prospects they have within the Services, as well as the respect that other nations have for our armaments programme and our long-term planning.
  I regard these rumours of cuts—I hope they are only rumours—as a great blow to morale and to the confidence that other nations should have in the Government's handling of our affairs. But above all that, we reach the point, in regard to our finances, at which the nation is in peril. On the Conservative side we all agree on the need for cutting Government expenditure but, as was said earlier in the debate, defence has already taken a mighty cut in its expenditure. We want to see action taken to curtail some of the excess Government expenditure and to retain the level of expenditure on defence that we believe to be crucial to the safety of the country.
  We shall be witnessing, I believe, the last mangled straw in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tumbril if these rumours are substantiated later by further cuts in our expenditure on defence. I see through all this the spectre of insolvency walking the Government Benches with rumours that are allowed to go unchecked in the Press and elsewhere. If those rumours proved to be correct, what would be the cost to the people of our country? At a later date the sea lanes, which are vital for our supplies, could be blockaded by the submarine force that the Russian navy has been and is building. We should not have the necessary warships and naval manpower at our disposal, or the concert of action of our Allies in NATO, to meet that blockade, to break it, and to secure a police action to safeguard our supplies.

  519
  I believe that there are two vital questions which need to be answered today. First, the Minister should confirm that the MRCA project will not be affected by any considerations now being hatched on Government expenditure. This is a co-operative effort with other nations. It is significant in what we are trying to do, which is to see a greater standardisation of weaponry that can be designed and manufactured jointly, in order to keep down costs and to work more closely in partnership with our NATO allies.
  The second vital question concerns the position of HMS "Invincible". Here we have the future capital ship of the Royal Navy. The Harrier commitment, which is part of the function of HMS "Invincible", in addition to the other operations that she will carry out, is crucial to our detection and central operational procedure in the Royal Navy. I hope that the Minister will give a firm undertaking that the building programme for HMS "Invincible" will continue, that we have a firm commitment to the naval Harrier aircraft, and that the building programme for the future through-deck anti-submarine cruisers will be undertaken to make provision for Harrier aircraft to operate.
  I turn now to another important subject—that of the Reserves. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy in his place, because it is he who, during the Navy Estimates debate, said that the Government valued most highly the enthusiasm, unselfishness and professionalism associated with the Navy Reserves. From all the information that I have, the Reserves are severely shaken by the cut-back that is now proposed.
  In that same debate, the Secretary of State talked about a reduction in the number of seagoing minesweepers that would be available to the Reserve divisions for training. The number was reduced from 11 ships to six. However, the structure of the personnel is the most important aspect, and it is the number of personnel in the Navy Reserves that I should like to see expanded rather than reduced.
  Here we have voluntary labour, which is cheaper than anything else we can get. I suppose that an officer receives a bounty
  520
  of about £50 a year, with about the same, or possibly a little less, going to ratings. Many people serving in the Reserves would gladly forgo their bounty if it meant that the manpower and the Reserve divisions could be maintained at their present levels, if not expanded.
  We all want to see cuts in expenditure where they are possible, but where a cut fundamentally changes the structure of, in this case, the Navy Reserves, we lose promotion prospects, we reach a point where fewer people are able to undertake the duties, and we end up by diminishing the Service.
  The calibre of people serving in the Reserves is of the highest order, considering the training that they receive. I see reductions of the kind now proposed as a senseless extravagance, in that they result in the loss of enthusiastic volunteers who maintain a force that can supplement our Regular Forces in times of stress and who can play a useful part even in what is happening now. I have in mind, for example, the offshore oil rigs. Why should not it be possible for RNR officers to take part more than they do at present in operations of that kind, in order to supplement the work of the Royal Navy at weekends, and for longer periods of training? They could be ferried to the rigs by helicopter, where they could perform some of the arduous tasks at present carried out by Regular naval officers. It would also give them seagoing experience, which is most important.
  We have this great problem looming ahead of us. I hope that the Minister will seek to turn away the rumours of further cuts in our defences. We have to get our priorities right. We have to get our safety right. We have to ensure that our integrity as an ally is upheld. Unless these rumours are reversed, that integrity and our word as a nation and as a crucial part of NATO will be called into question.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) refer to the Bill. It is important that we should consider the Bill because although it is of overriding importance to discuss the general defence posture of the nation it is, at the same time, important to consider the rights of individuals who

  521
  are Service men and women, and the Bill provides some important steps in improving those rights while raising certain questions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) referred.
  I am in the happy position of being able to assist the hon. Member for Harrogate in terms of the reference in Clause 9 to the death penalty. If he consults the Armed Forces Act 1971, he will see that it sets out certain offences which still carry the death penalty. It is to those that the Bill refers.
  I wish to confine myself primarily to the Armed Forces Bill. However, I also want to take up some of the matters raised by Opposition Members on defence expenditure generally. They have spoken today, as they have done previously, of the problem of defence. Again and again they berate the Labour Government for their cuts in defence expenditure, as though there were some absolute total of defence expenditure that they considered essential for the defence of the nation—a figure that they never reveal to us. They resist cuts, but they never say what they think the level of defence expenditure should be.
  Judging by the reaction of the Opposition to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), they are suggesting that we ought to spend more on defence. If that be the case, they must be prepared to set out those areas in which they would cut public expenditure in order to pay for the increases that they wish to see in the Armed Services.
  There is no absolute level of defence expenditure that is desirable at any given time. It is an arbitrary figure, and it is reached by weighing in the balance all the other areas of expenditure that we have to face. With our public sector borrowing requirement as it is, and with the demands being made on the social services, the housing programme and the education programme, we have to give serious consideration to the level of defence expenditure in relation to the expenditure in those other areas. An intelligent appraisal of defence expenditure demands an intelligent appraisal of the whole of public expenditure.
  Having said that, I go along broadly with the Government strategy set out in the White Paper, which limits our defence
  522
  commitment to a European posture. However, I hope that the Government will extend the logic of their own argument and finally withdraw from our world-wide commitments. That may be unpopular among the Opposition, and I gather from the White Paper, that even if we cut back on our world-wide expenditure outside the European Mediterranean theatre, it will involve only £150 million a year. However, that amount is important in the context of trying to find ways of cutting back on defence expenditure.
  I should like to refer to the expenditure that is presently laid out on Hong Kong. We expend the best part of £40 million a year there. The people who live there should be prepared to contribute more to the cost of defending Hong Kong, so that we would pay less.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is a danger that he, and those who think like him, will adopt a Maginot Line approach to defence, bearing in mind that so much of our food and fuel comes from outside the European theatre?
  Mr. Watkinson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if we pursued that view to its logical conclusion we should have to defend our commitments world-wide, and we simply cannot adopt such a posture, for the reasons that I have set out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is one of my hon. Friends who would ask for an immediate cut of £1,000 million in defence expenditure. Certain inevitable consequences follow from that. Those consequences relate to the employment of ordinary working people. I understand that the Select Committee on Defence Expenditure considered this matter and took evidence about it. It reached the conclusion that if there were an immediate and drastic cut of £1,000 million it would involve nearly 300,000 people being put out of work, including Armed Forces personnel and civilian personnel associated with the Armed Forces. This is a matter to which the Committee should give serious consideration. At the same time, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is entitled to turn to my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and ask them what sort of liaison is taking place between their representatives and the

  523
  representatives of the Departments of Employment and Industry, to ensure that when military personnel, or civilian personnel associated with the Armed Forces, are no longer required, schemes are available to absorb them into our economy.
  Further defence cuts may well be necessary. Defence cuts may also be necessary in other countries. We are not the only country with a public sector borrowing requirement of the proportions that we have at present. Given the appalling grain harvest in Russia and the appalling response to its agriculture effort, Russia may soon have to face the dilemma of guns or butter. It cannot go on much longer spending vast amounts on defence at the cost of its people.
  I turn to the Bill. The Bill is important in the way that it affects the rights of people who serve in the Armed Forces. I welcome the creation of civilian courts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth, I am worried to a certain extent about the increase in the powers which are being given to commanding officers under Clause 5.
  When opening the debate my right hon. Friend said that we were trying to inject into the legal processes within the Armed Forces certain standards which exist within the courts outside. Under the Bill penalties of detention will rise from 28 to 60 days, and fines from 14 to 28 days' pay. If such penalties were imposed by an ordinary court, almost certainly the person faced with those penalties would be given the opportunity of being represented. There is no scope for representation in these provisions, and that is a defect. What is more, given the size of these penalties we should consider the possibility of injecting some form of appeal procedure into the legal processes. I accept that in the Services it may be necessary to impose penalties without delay. However, we are concerned with the rights of the individual. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a possibility of an appeal procedure being introduced.
  I turn to the question of courts martial. I am concerned that legal aid in courts martial is not granted as of right. It is not granted basically as of right in the courts of the land, but anyone who appears before a court and is faced with a serious charge is given the opportunity to obtain
  524
  legal aid and representation by counsel. Under the present Regulations legal aid may be granted to an accused only in certain circumstances, but that does not mean that if the offence is major it will not be granted. However, I am concerned that the individual who comes before a court martial and faces the possibility of imprisonment should be given the opportunity of being representing by counsel.
  I have asked a Question about the payments that are presently offered to counsel to appear in courts martial. It appears that the figures that the Ministry has forwarded, which are apparently agreed between the Ministry and the Bar Counsel, are so low that they certainly would not attract the quality of counsel that might be necessary in some of the cases that are dealt with by courts martial. The matter needs to be reconsidered, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into it.
  I give a broad welcome to the creation of the civilian courts. The remedies available to the courts are entirely in keeping with justice as it exists in the country at present. I ask my hon. Friend whether there are persons in the Armed Forces who are concerned with what I broadly term probation work. Many of the remedies available to ordinary courts require reports from probation officers. Having read the Bill, I am not sure that such facilities are available.
  It is right that when people enter the Armed Forces they should be told exactly what their rights are, especially concerning discharge. This is an opaque area. I believe that people are entitled to know exactly where they stand when they join Her Majesty's Forces.
  It is important that the Bill should not be lost in the general discussion about defence matters. As I said in my opening remarks, it touches on certain fundamental rights and liberties of Service people. I hope that the House will give it serious consideration.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Blaker: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) complained that Conservatives never say precisely what they think the level of defence spending should be. My answer to him immediately is: not a pound less than it already is.

  525
  I suggest that it is sometimes useful to look at the picture through the eyes of Moscow. That is what I should like to do for the next few minutes.
  I believe that if I were an official in Moscow reporting to Mr. Brezhnev I should make a report somewhat along these lines: "Comrade Brezhnev, we are making good progress towards the subjugation of Western Europe. The main characteristic of Western democracy is that Members of the Assemblies there have a great capacity to deceive themselves, and that is especially manifest on the Left. They are deceiving themselves now about the real nature of detente. They are deceiving themselves into thinking that it means that they can safely relax their guard. This is encouraged by the fact that in the West "detente" means the cessation of strained relations between States. That is what people in the West believe that we understand by detente. They do not realise that we do not even have a word for detente and that we do not mean anything like that. We mean a time for consolidating our hold over Eastern Europe. By detente we mean an opportunity for extending our influence in Western Europe, without war if possible, but with war if necessary. We certainly do not mean any slackening of political confrontation nor do we mean any lowering of military preparation.
  "It is surprising, in view of the clear statements which have been made by senior members of the Soviet regime, that this misunderstanding in the West should persist.
  "You will recall, Comrade Brezhnev, that, as long ago as July, at the very time that the Helsinki Agreement was being signed, Comrade Ponomarev said that 'in conditions of detente the front lines of ideological conflict do not become silent. On the contrary, they become deeper and wider.'
  "You will recall that, on 6th August, in Pravda, Comrade Zarodov reminded Western Communist parties that they should establish their hegemony, if necessary by force. You will recall that, shortly after that article appeared, you made a point of meeting him and publicising the fact that you had met him and approved of what he said.
  "You will recall that, not long ago, you yourself repeated Lenin's words: 'Be
  526
  ready for any change of circumstances, to use any form of struggle, both peaceful and non-peaceful, legal and illegal.'
  "All these words appear to be ignored by parliamentarians in the West. What is more, they seem to be ignoring the words of the traitor Sakharov who has recently pointed out that the West is too ready to
  "grant unilateral concessions and gifts in the course of détente"
  and gone on to point out the dangers for the West of unilateral disarmament and the fact that it is likely to encourage the Soviet Union to step up its military efforts in strategically important parts of the world, such as the Indian Ocean.
  "What is perhaps even more remarkable is that people in the West ignore the warnings of their own military experts that our bases and our forces, by their location and composition, are designed for offensive rather than defensive use. Indeed, not only do they ignore these warnings, but they respond by helping us out when we have a shortage of grain and selling us their advanced technology.
  "On the military front, they ignore the enormous increases that we have made in our tank forces since the preparations began for the Helsinki Conference a few years ago, the enormous increases we have made in our artillery forces, our combat aircraft, and in Warsaw Pact manpower.
  "While we are making these increases, they are cutting their forces and we see a crumbling of the NATO posture in the Mediterranean. This is occurring at a time when it should be obvious to all the people concerned with defence in the West that the ability of the United States, on whom they principally depend, is weakened by internal doubts and by a conflict for power between the President and the Congress.
  "So, Comrade Brezhnev, my advice to you is that there can be no better time to push on with the development of our network of bases in Africa, Conakry, Berbera, our base in Aden, our facilities in Cuba and now, of course, the prospect of obtaining bases in Angola.
  "If present trends continue. I believe it is possible that, in a few years' time, we shall have such a preponderance of military and naval strength in Europe

  527
  and on the sea lanes and that the West will be psychologically so disarmed that we may be able, by intimidation and pressure, to impose our will on one or more of the member countries of the NATO bloc.
  "Taking particular countries, in Portugal our man Cunhal responds very well to our instructions. He has had setbacks recently, but his efforts to build up an organisation in the Armed Forces continues and, as you know, he is systematically distributing arms. I believe that the money we have been pouring into the Portuguese Communist Party, although it is large, is well worth the expense.
  "As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, our preparations for bringing Yugoslavia back into the Soviet camp after the death of Tito, which cannot be long delayed, continue. It is true that the Yugoslays at the present time have launched a campaign to discredit our sympathisers there. It may be that Marshal Tito will have some success with his claim that what is at stake is not ideology but independence. However, we can take comfort from the fact that the Americans -appear reluctant to supply the Yugoslavs with anti-tank weapons or economic credits and that the EEC is also reluctant to come forward with credits.
  "Moreover, the NATO countries, in my opinion, are totaly unprepared psychologically to meet any threat of military pressures against Yugoslavia, and it should be possible, after Tito's death, by judicious timing to create pretexts for intervention in that country without any serious danger of a NATO reaction.
  "I turn now, Comrade Brezhnev, to Britain. Here I believe we have excellent prospects for a breakthrough. I have reported to you in the past on the alleged comprehensive review of defence which the Government carried out a year or more ago and the likely effect of that review on the flanks of the NATO bloc.
  "I reported subsequently on the cuts of £100 million or more which the Government made, despite having just completed that review. I have reported to you also on the derisory efforts which the British Government are making for the protection of their North Sea oil installations.
  528
  "I must now report to you that there are reports in the Press in Britain that the Government are planning further cuts of between £600 million and £800 million, and I have reason to believe, from our usual sources and on past performance, that these reports have some substance.
  "It may seem incredible to you, Comrade Brezhnev, that, although the British Government have conducted a comprehensive, fundamental review—the most fundamental review, they claim, which has been conducted for a generation, in the field of defence—there is no other field of Government spending in which they have conducted any similar review. They have not conducted a housing review, as far as I know."
  Mr. Watkinson: There is one under way.
  Mr. Blaker: "They have not conducted a health service review. They have not conducted an education review. The only field in which they have conducted such a fundamental review is that of defence.
  "I must report to you that most politicians in Britain—and the same is true on the Continent of Western Europe—fail to understand that our whole strategy, the build-up of our naval fleet, the acquisition of bases in Africa and Asia, the boosting of our troop levels in Central Europe, are aimed at Western Europe. Western Europe is the target because, when we have control of Western Europe, our military and industrial strength will be greater than that of the rest of the world put together.
  "It is also true that most British politicians on the Left fail to realise when they talk about spending more on hospitals, housing and schools, that if there were war, such spending would come to a dead stop and that those hospitals, houses and schools which they have now would be destroyed. All their plans for the greater comfort of their people would be irrelevant.
  "I come now, Comrade Brezhnev, to my recommendations for action by the Soviet Union. First, we should go slow on negotiations in the MBFR because there is no point in continuing them in Britain's present mood. I expect the British Government to disarm without

  529
  any concessions on our part. Secondly, we should concentrate our efforts to weaken the military strength and the will power of the West on Britain.
  "I say this for four reasons. First, because Britain still has a good deal of prestige in the Western capitals. This may seem surprising to you, Comrade Brezhnev, but I suppose there are historical reasons for it, in spite of Britain's present condition. So her example is likely to be followed. Second, because Britain is the weakest country economically in the EEC, for which our sympathisers in Britain must take a great deal of credit, and it is evident that they are going to have to cut spending pretty severely. Third, because those in the ruling party in Britain who sympathise with our point of view are in a strong position—indeed they have never been stronger—and can be counted on to insist on the bulk of the cuts falling on defence.
  "The fourth reason relates to the character of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of Britain is a weak man whose main consideration is to keep his party together. He will respond to any pressure if the alternative carries a risk to the unity of his party and, if necessary, the interests of the nation will come second.
  "Comrade Brezhnev, there is a substance sold in toy shops in Britain with which children play called Plasticine—a sort of putty which can be pushed into any shape. I would liken the British Prime Minister to Plasticine because he bears the imprint of the greatest pressure put upon him. There is a good chance that the pressure which the Marxists in his party are applying, and the apathy of many other members of his party, will have the effect that we wish. I therefore recommend, Comrade Brezhnev, that this course holds out the best of prospects of weakening the NATO Pact and of achieving our aims."
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) will excuse me if I do not join him in sending a message to the First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. Unlike him, I do not know the gentleman, but I am on nodding acquaintance with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and his
  530
  colleagues so I shall be addressing my remarks to them.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State tried to assure the House that the present review of public expenditure, and particularly the part that has been played in that review by defence expenditure, was no more than the normal annual review of these matters. I was immediately reminded of Section 1 of the "Bluff and Persuasion Act" which says that it is not what you say that matters but the blush on your face when you say it. There can be no doubt that the review concentrates highly on the defence element. The whole House awaits with some anxiety the statement that will eventually come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about proposals for reductions in overall expenditure.
  I hope the Government will bear in mind two major factors. First, any reduction in defence expenditure which results in a weakening of our capacity to sustain the NATO alliance would be a disaster. Second, any reductions in defence expenditure which would bring about a further severe loss of job opportunities would also be a disaster because I am convinced that the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy and the adherence of the trade unions to the £6 pay limit depend entirely upon the Government's ability to halt and push back the unemployment figures. Any cuts in public expenditure, and in defence expenditure in particular, that aggravated an already unacceptable level of unemployment would be a disastrous blow to the main battle against inflation, which is without doubt the accord that we now have with the trade unions.
  The Minister of State also referred to the Order that is laid before Parliament each year to continue the military discipline Acts for the three Services. He said that it was the Government's intention to abolish the requirement for the annual laying of the Order before Parliament. He argued that for the last few years there had been no debate on the Order and that it had gone through on the nod.
  I think that is an argument in favour of continuing the present practice. I am against abolishing the requirement to lay the Order before Parliament. I am convinced that the constitutional relationship between Parliament, the civilian Government and the Armed Forces is an

  531
  important principle to preserve. I do not believe that there will be a time in the foreseeable future when the contents of the discipline Acts will be severely challenged, unless there are genuine grounds, arising from circumstances which have actually occurred, which make it necessary for Parliament to debate the Order. Therefore, it is a safeguard to continue the requirement that the Order be placed before Parliament, so that there is absolute certainty that, in any year in which there may be grave public apprehension about the application of the discipline Acts, there can be a debate at some point about it without having to reply upon Supply Days or some other procedure. The Government should think again about discontinuing the existing practice.
  I turn to the question how the Bill will be dealt with in its passage through Parliament. I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that the 1966 and 1971 practice is to be repeated in that we are to have a Select Committee to deal with the Bill. That is a much better way of dealing with these Acts than putting the legislation before an ordinary Standing Committee. I am more than satisfied, having been a member of the last Select Committee to consider this matter, that the Select Committee procedure provides an opportunity for that Committee to get around the country, if it wishes, to inspect on the ground the detention establishments, to take evidence from representatives of the Armed Forces and to examine witnesses. None of these things would be possible in an ordinary Standing Committee.
  If, therefore, we are to minimise debate on the Floor of the House on these matters, we should be absolutely certain that the Select Committee has adequate power and opportunity thoroughly to examine the implications of the Acts. I am more than delighted that that is to be the case again with this Bill.
  I have several questions on a number of matters which concern me. First, there is some apprehension by soldiers in Northern Ireland that under the Army Act they cannot be construed as being on active service because they are serving within the United Kingdom. Ts that the position? What would be the benefit to our soldiers in Northern Ireland if it
  532
  were possible to place them on an active service standing while operationally engaged there?
  Second, there is the question of extending from 28 to 60 days the power of a commanding officer to order detention. I recall that in the last Select Committee there was discussion about sentencing policy. My right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for Wales played a leading part in bringing the matter before the Committee, and I seem to recall that there was a document setting out comparisons of detention sentencing between the Royal Navy—whose commanding officers have always had much greater power than their counterparts in the RAF and the Army—and the other two Services. If my recollection is correct, there was a higher rate of detention sentencing in excess of 28 days in the Royal Navy than in the Army and the RAF, both of which relied more on the court martial procedure.
  We need to be satisfied, therefore, that in extending the power of commanding officers to give longer detention sentences, we are not creating a situation in which there will be a substantial expansion in the number of serving men sentenced to detention quarters.
  Third, I think that there is a success story in the Royal Navy in regard to detention quarters. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Navy, appointed Brigadier Maunsell to carry out an inquiry into naval detention quarters. His report was reassuring, establishing that many of the Press reports and speculation about these quarters were completely unfounded. The hon. Gentleman then extended the system of visiting of naval detention quarters from that of ordinary naval visitors and quarterly inspection. He instituted an independent board of visitors to the quarters. My hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for the Navy has further extended the system to include two hon. Members on the independent board. I am one of the Members of this House on the board. The other parliamentary Member is from the Opposition.
  I believe that this process has had a tremendously beneficial effect, because it means that if there is any speculation

  533
  about the conditions of rehabilitation in the naval detention quarters—complaints about the quality of food or anything else relevant—it can be established quickly by a statement from the independent board, following visits, that these fears are either unfounded or founded upon fact.
  My worry is that, whereas this system is working satisfactorily for the Royal Navy, I am not aware that the Army has taken the same enlightened attitude. So far as I can ascertain from reading the rules and regulations on the administration of places of confinement of military personnel of the Army and the RAF, it is still a matter of military inspection without any independent element.
  I believe that these military corrective training establishments would also benefit from the inspection of an independent board, preferably including one of two hon. Members from each side of the House, who could make regular visits and satisfy themselves, and this House if necessary, that things were being conducted in the proper manner.
  I do not take the view that the Armed Forces are likely to act in any improper manner. I am more than satisfied that the standard of control is very high. But there can always be unfortunate incidents in which an individual is carried away by the power he possesses. We see it in Parliament, so it would not be surprising if we saw it in the Armed Forces.
  Therefore, if we have an independent element of inspection, we minimise the risk of unfortunate incidents and ensure a wider degree of public confidence in naval detention quarters and military corrective training establishments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say something on this subject. I do not expect him to be able to make any startling announcement, but at least he should be able to tell us that he and his colleagues will think about the matter and perhaps come forward fairly rapidly with some proposals.
  Finally, I want to say something about the whole question of defence. Unfortunately, I was not present in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) spoke, but no doubt he laid before the House his well-established and well-understood view of
  534
  events. As I said to him on previous occasions, I think that it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable to be a pacifist, and argue in support of one's view. But if one is not a pacifist, there does not exist the same degree of tolerance and understanding for the view that this country should be rendered naked in its defence capacity against any unforeseen eventualities.
  It has always been my contention that defence is vital to our national well-being. Education is vital to our children, but without peace it has no meaning. The social services, however much they may be needed by people in desperate need, are again meaningless unless as a nation we live in security. Peace and security for this nation and for Western Europe is assured only by the maintenance of the NATO alliance and by a strong, positive and firm commitment by the United Kingdom to a capability to enable us to play a full part in that Alliance.
  Therefore I say to my hon. Friends, as I say to my constituents, "Let us carry on the battle for education, for social services and, indeed, for Socialism but let us do it in an atmosphere in which through our defence commitment we shall have peace and security both to build up those desirable things and to defend and preserve them if the need ever arises".
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Antony Buck: Save for his exhortation that the battle for Socialism should be continued, I agreed with almost everything said by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). Very often a Member who is called to speak rises and says that he does not intend to follow the speech of his predecessor in the debate, but for a moment I should like to follow what the hon. Gentleman said.
  The hon. Gentleman commended the decision of the Government to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and I follow him in that commendation. As he said, the Select Committee will no doubt be able to pay visits to investigate the situation that exists relative to the maintenance of discipline throughout our Armed Forces. No doubt in due course the hon. Gentleman will find himself a member of the Select Committee, and in my capacity as the Member of Parliament for Colchester I look forward to welcoming him

  535
  at the Military Corrective Training Establishment there.
  The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in certain respects the corrective system in the Army is perhaps not as enlightened as that in the Royal Navy. I say that with pride, as an ex-Navy Minister. The hon. Gentleman should not think that he would not be welcome at the excellent Military Corrective Training Establishment if he were to visit it as a Member of Parliament rather than in any other capacity. There are one or two hon. Members who have said that earlier in their careers they have been in the Colchester Corrective Training Establishment, and not in the rôle of a Member of Parliament. It is right that the Bill should be referred to in Select Committee. That will enable the kind of visits envisaged by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford to take place.
  I hope that the existence of the Select Committee will give a spur to the further implementation of the Maunsell report, which has so far been implemented only in part. That report envisages that eventually there will be at Colchester a consolidated corrective training establishment providing facilities for all the Services.
  When the hon. Gentleman comes to Colchester to see the MCTE he will find that it is an admirably-run establishment, but not an economic one. I think I am right in saying that it is the only hutted camp still in permanent occupation, on any scale, by our Forces. It is a nissen hut establishment, and not, I think, even the revered spider system in its full glory of pinewood and central ablutions.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Brigadier Maunsell's report had not been fully implemented. To the best of my knowledge the report has not been made available in full to the House. Does he agree that it should be placed in the Library, so that we may all have the benefit of reading it?
  Mr. Buck: My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman is right. Having been a Minister for Defence I have had the advantage of being able to read the report, and I hope that I shall not con- 536
  travene the Official Secrets Act if I say that I cannot recollect anything in it that should prevent its being published. Indeed, the Government, if in doubt, could publish what, in the jargon, is referred to as a sanatised version of the report. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in replying to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) referred to the technicalities of the Bill and said that he would like further clarification of the increased powers being given to commanding officers. I share that view, and hope that we shall have further explanations in Committee.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has left the Chamber. I found myself unable to agree with the remainder of what he said. He turned his remarks to the wider issues of defence and said that there is no "absolute"—and he is right—that we can assume is the right amount to spend on defence. However, we were told that that was precisely the purpose of the greatest review of all time. We were told that it was the most comprehensive review, and the Secretary of State said that its purpose was to set the path in respect of defence spending for the next 10 years. Despite that, one found that in almost less than 10 weeks that fundamental review had been revised and there was a further cut of £110 million in defence expenditure. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West is right in saying that there is no absolute, but the Government purported to have done as fundamental a review as was humanly possible, and having completed it they said that they had got things wrong and that there must be a reduction of another £110 million.
  Today, we are considering a matter that affects the morale of our forces, because matters of discipline and morale are intertwined. I find it disappointing that there is not as crowded a House on an issue such as this as there will be tomorrow, when we consider the issue of the death penalty. It is my view that keeping our Armed Forces at a proper level and their morale at the highest is more important than the issue of the death penalty. The maintenance of the morale of our Forces, which is intertwined with there being the right numbers, is more important than the question

  537
  whether we reintroduce the death penalty, yet we have a sparsely attended Chamber and little public interest in our deliberations.
  Let us consider the situation of discipline and morale. First, as the Member of Parliament for a garrison constituency, morale in the Army concerns me particularly. The Northern Ireland situation dominates here. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will deal with force levels, because they are relevant to the maintenance of morale and, therefore, of discipline.
  As earlier speakers said, the morale and discipline of our troops at the moment are very high, but are likely to be affected if the tours of duty in Northern Ireland become ever more frequent; if, for example, units find themselves spending their third or fourth Christmas in Northern Ireland.
  We have had an indication of the Government's response to the Northern Ireland situation. We have heard their response to the fact that we are now out of balance with the Warsaw Pact countries. We have to try to contain a ghastly situation in Northern Ireland, yet by 1979 there is to be a reduction of 15,000 in the strength of the Army. We are not clear whether the figures in the White Paper are now able to be revised in an accurate way, because of the additional cuts that were announced just after it was published. Perhaps that matter, too, could be cleared up, because it is strictly relevant to the issue of discipline.
  Many of us think it right that we should pass into law this measure, which reenacts the Army Discipline Act, but we should have some assurance about relative force levels, because I know, from seeing battalions pass through Colchester and visiting them in the Province, that it can have an effect on morale when it comes to the fifth or sixth tour of duty.
  I should like to know whether there will be sufficient manpower for the offensive that we ought to take in South Armagh. Recently I wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I sent a copy to the Secretary of State for Defence. In it, I dealt with the situation confronting some troops from the 3rd Battalion the Fusiliers, who were shot
  538
  down brutally on the border. I called for a major initiative in South Armagh.
  Our forces should not again have to be confronted with a quasi-no-go area—and it matters not whether it is in an urban area or in the rural context of South Armagh, which I have visited two or three times. We must be sure that there are sufficient troops to mount an offensive, so that the powers of law and order can be re-established in that part of the Province before there is a repetition of this kind of ghastly murder. The reputation of the 3rd Battalion the Fusiliers is rightly very high in my constituency, their permanent place of posting.
  The Secretary to the Military Committee of NATO, Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton, who was Chief of the Defence Staff when I was at the Ministry of Defence, has thought it necessary to call world attention, again, to the imbalance in NATO and to issue an exhortation that there should be no further NATO cuts, especially in view of the situation over the MBFR negotiations. He reiterated the matters in the Government's White Paper concerning the military balance and brought them up to date.
  The Under-Secretary will have noted that the Admiral gives particular attention to the balance of air power, pointing out that by the early 1980s most Soviet aircraft will be of advanced design, with the latest electronic devices. In the 1960s, as he points out, we held the advantage here, but that is no longer so. It is bound to affect morale if our forces know that their equipment is no better, and may be worse, than that of a potential foe.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West asked where we would make our alternative cuts. I can point to one area immediately. Instead of nationalising the shipbuilding industry at vast cost the money should be used to build more ships and restore the Navy's building programme that we left behind. The immensely high morale of our sailors will not be maintained unless they know that they will continue to have the finest equipment. Surely, when our sailors are conducting themselves with such gallantry in Icelandic waters they are entitled to reassurance from the Government.

  539
  Certainty is necessary for morale. There is nothing like uncertainty to destroy it. Yet there is uncertainty throughout the Armed Forces because of the rumours of substantial defence cuts. When we are beset by perils from the external influences of the Warsaw Pact and internally from subversive elements, the forces are entitled to expect the Government not to miss this opportunity to reassure them.
  Another matter that affects discipline is compassion in the organisation of our forces. I have never believed that the Opposition had a monopoly of patriotism or concern for the Armed Forces. Some Labour Members share that concern. We have heard from some of them today. There are others, however, whose defence policy would be to send the Politburo a telegram to accompany the letter drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) which would be even more pleasing to that body. It would be like the Scandinavian idea of a tape recording that said "We surrender."
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams indicated dissent.
  Mr. Buck: I do not accuse the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) of that. But I am sorry that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and some others are not here. If they were, we could ask them to deal with that charge.
  That is the difference—on the Government side of the House there are those whose defence policy consists of the words "I surrender". I hope that those Labour Members who share our concern will weed them out. It is time that the moderates, those who are patriotic, sorted out those of their hon. Friends whose policy is to socialise and nationalise everything, to build no ships but to nationalise shipbuilding and to send a telegram saying "We surrender" instead of having a defence policy.
  We should organise our forces compassionately. A particular matter in my constituency affects discipline. Units go from my constituency for tours of duty to Northern Ireland. They leave behind their "married families", in the curious phrase that the forces use. They leave their wives and children to be looked
  540
  after in Colchester, and I hope that we do it well. We have a superb military hospital here, which my Government had intended to keep open for at least 10 years. The Government have now announced that they will close it, which will mean, among other things, enormous additional burdens on the already hard-pressed civilian hospitals.
  This hospital is a major facility in the Colchester area but its closing is also likely to affect morale and thus discipline. When a man goes on an unaccompanied tour of Northern Ireland he likes to feel that his wife and children will be well catered for, and the military hospital looks after their medical needs superbly. There are not the same civilian facilities in Colchester, which is long overdue for a new hospital. I exhort the Government to look at this matter again, to revert to our decision and to keep the hospital open for at least 10 years. Nothing is more disturbing to a man serving in Northern Ireland than the feeling that his wife and children back home are not being looked after as they should be.
  This is an important and, on the whole, a good Bill. I welcome the fact that it will go to a Select Committee. There are certain matters, such as the increased powers to be given to commanding officers to impose penalties, that will need to be scrutinised. We shall look at those matters in detail.
  As the Bill concerns the morale of our troops, I hope that the Government will not let this opportunity pass, and will give some words of reassurance, which will create a greater degree of certainty in the Armed Forces about future levels of manpower and their future equipment. There are many external and internal pressures on society in general, and we cannot afford to have Armed Forces with anything but the highest of morale. Unless the uncertainty is ended, that high morale will not long remain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Apart from Front Bench speakers who will reply to the debate, eight hon. Members wish to participate. I appeal to hon. Members to apportion the time in a reasonable fashion.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: during the past 12 months the mournful experience of Portugal has reminded us

  541
  that disciplined Armed Forces are essential factors in the well-being of the State, and that if the respect of the Armed Forces for the States cracks, society is put in jeopardy. For the past 200 years we have been exceptionally fortunate. The Government have always been able to rely upon the obedience of their Armed Forces. It is one of the few blessings that, perhaps, we can still take for granted.
  However, let us recognise the strain that the Government are now putting on the discipline of our Armed Forces. Let us consider, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) did, the question of Government policy in Northern Ireland.
  For more than five years there has been a great parade of Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box, praising the morale of our forces and saying that no other army in the world could carry out duties such as this with such restraint and good humour. That is all true. Let us bear in mind also the additional strain that has been put on the Army in the past few months with the policy of restraint and the result that we have seen, alas, recently in South Armagh. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that that is bandit country. Yet troops can open fire only in self-defence. They can apprehend those whom they suspect of leading terrorist activities only under quite exceptional circumstances. In recent months they have been unable to carry out organised searches and interrogations in the old way, and there have been areas into which they have been instructed not to go. Some 14 members of the forces have died in South Armagh, but, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) reminded us in Question Time recently, only one terrorist has been killed.
  All this puts an enormous strain on the discipline of our soldiers. We have seen this happen in other parts of the world, and if it continues for too long something usually begins to crack. Sometimes the defence forces just give up. More often—and this has happened in parts of South America and in Algiers with the French "paras"—the Armed Forces do not believe that they have the backing of their Government and they take action on their own or pass information and weapons to para-military organisations which, they believe, will take the neces-
  542
  sary action—action which they themselves are not allowed to take. That is unlikely to happen with our forces in Northern Ireland.
  I am exceptionally alarmed by the Gallup Poll that was published recently in the Daily Telegraph. It shows that 64 per cent. of the population of this country believes that we should begin to withdraw the British Army from Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible for the gang leaders of the IRA to look at that Gallup Poll and say, "Look what a few random bombs and a few assassinations in Great Britain have done. So rally round the bombs, boys. All we have to do is to plant a few more, shoot a few more public figures and the majority of public opinion will give in and demand that the boys should be brought back home."
  That is a wrong interpretation of the poll. The British public are not saying that they want to surrender to the terrorists, or that the IRA can bomb them out of part of the United Kingdom, but they are expressing the opinion that the Army is being used in the wrong way. They are saying that a low profile policy is not the sort of policy that should continue indefinitely, that more active steps should be taken against the IRA and that they do not want our soldiers simply to be targets.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the response given to the opinion poll, which he quoted, may have depended very much on the way in which the question was worded? Does he not further agree that if the question had been put this way—"Do you believe that Northern Ireland and the Queen's subjects there should be abandoned to the tender mercies of the assassins of Mr. McWhirter?"—the answer would have been different?
  Mr. Goodhart: I hope and believe that at least 95 per cent. of those who were asked would have responded in a positive way to a question of that sort. Yesterday I had a brief conversation with Norris McWhirter, who reminded me of a remark that was made by a former Conservative colleague in this House—a rather sharp-tongued colleague—Kenneth Pickthorn. Kenneth used to remind people, "Remember, dry rot always starts with

  543
  wetness". One of the reasons for this Gallup poll result is a feeling that there has been too much wetness in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government's wetness will not lead to the dry rot of discipline.
  The Army has inevitably been involved in politics in Northern Ireland. Indeed, one of the minor clauses of the Bill tightens up the provisions for those in the Ulster Defence Regiment who might wish to become Members of this House of Commons. During the Committee stage of the Referendum Act the Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box and said that legislation had been prepared to change the registration procedures for soldiers, and he hoped that legislation would soon be introduced. I hope that that legislation will soon be introduced. I hope that when replying to the debate the Minister will give us some indication of the Government's intention on this matter.
  In the course of the Committee stage of the Bill we shall have an opportunity to go in considerable detail into the exact powers that commanding officers have to give detention to the men under them or to fine them. However, I think that all of us in the House would agree that in practice the fundamental foundation of discipline within the Armed Forces is not the powers of the commanding officer but a question of pride—pride in one's unit or regiment, pride in one's equipment, and pride in one's role.
  Here again, I am anxious about the Government's activities. We know that in this fundamental defence review, which is now, it seems, to be scrapped, the regimental system was saved, as it were, by a hair's breadth. We know that it was by cutting men from brigade headquarters that we were able to avoid cutting regiments. Trials have been carried out whether this particular innovation would work. One gathers that very many problems have arisen, as we expected and as we warned. If there is now to be yet a further cut in the manpower of the Army, I fear for the continuation of the regimental system. If the regimental system goes, discipline will be infinitely harder to maintain in the Armed Forces.
  I fear for the advanced equipment—the multi-role combat aircraft and the through-deck cruisers—if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets his way. I fear for
  544
  the role of the Navy and for the Royal Air Force if the Chancellor gets his way. I have no doubt that our allies are at this moment sending messages of warning to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. I believe that it will be a disaster if we sabotage our contribution to the Alliance, as we would be sabotaging not only our allies but our Service men as well.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I intervene fairly brieflly in the debate to follow up two points that have been made. The first is the reference to Portugal. I believe that if we have any lessons to learn from Portugal, one very strong lesson is that a country should not spend more on its Armed Forces than it can genuinely afford. We have been in danger of doing that for a long time. I believe that we should be looking very hard at our defence expenditure.
  On the question of the Gallup poll and the attitude of many people in England to the Irish situation, it seems to me that people wanted not an increase in the military profile in Northern Ireland but rather to see a political solution. People want to see either a political solution or clear evidence that we are working towards a political solution. It is the failure to produce a political solution which makes people want to wash their hands of the problem.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are also Gallup polls which show that the public want either capital punishment or clear evidence that we are working in this House towards the return of capital punishment? Does he believe that equal credence should be given to Gallup polls in both those instances?
  Mr. Bennett: I was not about to give any credence particularly to Gallup polls. I was suggesting that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) had used the Gallup poll to illustrate one point, and I wanted to illustrate the opposite. What people wanted was political, rather than military, solutions. However, I think that most hon. Members would agree that opinion polls are far too much of a simplification.
  On the question of capital punishment, if one phrases the question as one straight

  545
  question, undoubtedly one gets a certain result. As soon as one phrases slightly more detailed questions, people begin to back away. I believe that the general public are much more in line with the attitude of hon. Members on this subject.
  On the question of producing a political solution in Northern Ireland, I am certain that that is what people here want. They do not want an increased military role there. They would prefer to see a rapidly reducing role. I am certain that people in this era have been convinced that one cannot find military solutions to most problems. One has to find political solutions. That is the lesson we must learn. We must find political solutions and we cannot now impose in any situation a military solution which will last for any length of time.
  I should like to take up the subject of the Bill and the question of discipline within the Armed Forces. Our concerti ought to lie in the fact that our Armed Forces are composed of volunteers. What particularly disturbs me, from experience of a situation which has arisen in my constituency, is the number of young people who are recruited into the Armed Forces as young soldiers and young personnel in the other Services as a result, possibly, of pressure from parents who have served in the Army or the other Services, found the life enjoyable and persuaded their sons or, in some instances their daughters to try it. There is also the question of the advertisements that are put out and much of the material which goes into schools which suggests that the Services are extremely attractive as a career. Finally, sadly at present, there are the difficulties of employment for school leavers, which mean that some of them are led towards recruitment when they might otherwise go into other professions.
  It is very unfortunate that many of these young people get into the Services, find that the initial training is still fairly enjoyable, but on reaching the age of 18 begin to find out what the Services are really about, and then they wish that they had never entered. We should be making things far easier for the groups of people who have discovered that military life is not for them to find their way out. Many of the problems of discipline which exist within the Forces arise
  546
  because people are kept in against their will. From experience of talking to one or two of my constituents, I find that they very much regret that their right to get out of the Forces before they reached the age of 18 was not made very clear. Once such young people reach that age they lose their chance to leave.
  There has been a committee of inquiry into this matter. I hope that in Committee we shall look at the way in which people recruited when under the age of 18 may have the opportunity to opt out when they find out what the Services are all about. I hope that this provision will be incorporated in the Bill.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: We are carrying out this debate supposedly to continue the duration of the Services Acts until 1981. However, in reality the whole debate is surrounded by rumour of impending cuts within the Armed Services. If those cuts are made, as some people are beginning to think they will be, it is quite possible that by 1981 there will be no need to re-enact this Bill yet again.
  It seems to me that the centre of this matter was best put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), who made his case so brilliantly as the Devil's advocate. There can be no doubt that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate—not only Opposition Members—accepts fully that we are in a period of great danger and that the people of this country should accept that fact and be prepared to carry the cost of the necessary defence burden that that must involve for every one of us. I doubt whether that is the case. I quote briefly from a speech made by Mr. Harold Macmillan. He said:
  "We must either retreat from our obligations and accept a policy of isolation, which will be mean, immoral and dangerous, or we must go on with all our force with a collective system, and so shoulder our responsibilities as honest people of a responsible nation."
  That would be an apposite speech to be making tonight, but in fact it was made in 1935. God knows that we must all regret the years following 1935, which brought us to war in 1939.
  I turn now from the general to the particular. I had the honour and privilege to serve in the Parachute Regiment for six years. Exactly one week ago I put a

  547
  question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the rôle of the Regular Parachute Brigade and the TA Parachute Brigade. The reply I received read:
  "As was announced in the Defence White Paper, the concept of the United Kingdom Joint Airborne Task Force of two battalions and their support is to be abandoned, but a limited parachute capability is to be retained within the United Kingdom Mobile Force."—[Official Report, 5th December 1975: Vol. 901, c. 746.]
  No mention is made of the TA rôle or the future of the Regular Parachute Brigade. That is utter nonsense and poppycock. Hiding behind those words is the clear intention to destroy the Regular Parachute Brigade. That is the most dastardly thing for any Government of any complexion to do. I am certain that morale will be affected throughout the Services as these rumours grow. The Commandos and the Gurkha Brigades will take exactly the same view when they hear this news coming through.
  I have met this business of limited airborne parachute capability before. The limiting factor arises when no aircraft are available. Given that limiting factor, the raison d'être of the Regular Parachute Brigade ceases.
  Equally serious is the obvious intention of the Government to do away with the 44 Parachute Brigade. I believe that it was a Conservative Government in 1957 who reduced the 16th Airborne Division to one brigade. I thought that that was a stupid thing to do at the time. We then had a division on the cheap, each battalion being self-sufficient, each battalion being up to strength and with a waiting list. There was a reduction to one brigade, and now we have exactly the same position within that brigade. It is the only TA brigade in the United Kingdom that is capable of taking the field at anything like full strength. Each of the battalions has a waiting list of volunteers in the 17–19 age bracket. It is the sort of thing that we should be encouraging and not discouraging.
  I hope that the Government will discount these and other rumours that are going about. If they are fact, let that be said loudly and clearly, so that we know where the Government stand, because we shall certainly stand on the opposite side, with much support from all sides of this House.
  548
  Another rumour is that the Government have made their decision to support Chrysler. If they have decided to do that and if the figures I have heard bandied about are true—they run from £100 million to £400 million or £500 million, in the long term—we are surely living in an Alice-in-Wonderland situation. It seems that we are giving aid to Chrysler to undercut British Leyland instead of giving direct support to defence, thus keeping jobs that we shall inevitably lose in the long run from the Chrysler situation. We should deplore the fact that we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
  My final point is the one that I made in Paris, at the Atlantic Treaty Association Congress. I was told there that I was aiming far too high, but it seems incredible that we in the West are prepared to see the Russians turn out armaments on an ever-increasing scale when the Russian economy is incapable of supporting its armaments industry.
  What do we do? We go in underneath and underpin the Russian armaments industry. The Americans pour in agricultural produce to back up the Russian economy. We make agreements with the Russians and return delighted when we have been able to conclude trade agreements which allow them to continue to give their people the minimum of consumer goods whilst they continue to pour out weapons. That seems to be an Alice-in-Wonderland situation.
  If we are looking for ways of destroying the Russian capability—that is exactly what we should be doing—we should force them to turn their swords into ploughshares. It is obvious that the Government should turn their attention in that direction.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), I was listening to a discussion on this very subject over the weekend and a fairly senior American official stated that it was his belief—I assume that it represented thinking in the American Government, to some extent—that it would be impossible for any American Administration, even if one were led by a President Jackson—if that were to come about—to adopt the kind of policy that the hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating.

  549
  This official said that he felt that not only the farming community but the great mass of the American people would find it difficult to accept an argument that attempted to deny selling grain to people who desperately needed it, espectially if they could pay for it. The sort of policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates the Government should pursue, given its limited resources, could not even be followed by the American Government.
  I take the opportunity that is offered of discussing the wider issue of defence rather than the details of the Bill, which we shall discuss in Committee. I shall deal with the kind of attacks that we receive from the Opposition—I am sure that they are well-intentioned—which often do not take account of the sincerity, determination and sense of purpose of Ministers.
  I take again the analogy of the United States. The ex-United States Secretary for Defence, Mr. Schlesinger, who is well known as a hard-liner towards the Soviet Union, was dismissed by a President who would not have been described by Senator McCarthy, in the old days, as a weak-kneed Liberal. The President who dismissed Mr. Schlesinger is a Right-winger. What is more, that Right-Wing President is running scared because he is afraid of an attack from the further right—from his competitor, Governor Ronald Reagan. Despite that danger from his right flank and despite the fact that he is a Right-wing President, he thought tit to dismiss Mr. Schlesinger. He did so partly because he apparently cannot get on with Schlesinger and partly because his Secretary of State did not like the ex-Secretary for Defence. But we can presume that he dismissed him because he decided in favour of the policies advocated by his Secretary of State as opposed to those policies put forward by Mr. Schlesinger. We know that the balance between the two men is that Mr. Kissinger believes in a policy of detente and a policy of greater trust of the Soviet Union, whereas Mr. Schlesinger was in favour of keeping the guard right up, keeping every defence in place and investing as far as possible greater amounts of money into further weapon development.
  Conservative Members should reflect that if a Right-wing President of the United States is in favour of the softer
  550
  line, as put forward by a member of his Administration, and sees fit to dismiss the fire-eating Secretary for Defence, then Ministers who say that we can reduce defences further and that we do not need the kind of total commitment that some hon. Members seem to advocate are perfectly sincere and are not bent on throwing over the defences of this country. It has been said that the last thing we want to do with our defence policy is to reshape it radically merely in response to economic contingencies. I agree with that point of view, but Government policies in many fields should be strategic policies, shaped over a long period of time. Those policies, too, could be dramatically harmed by radical cuts.
  Let us take the social services departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is not saying "I have a little more money, so I will build another hospital here, or there." My right hon. Friend has an overall strategy for her Department, as do other spending Departments. Major cuts mean that the strategies of those Departments involve as much heart-searching as do major defence cuts. Opposition Members should not always have such a preoccupation that it is only in defence matters that cuts may ruin the situation. Cuts have their effect in areas other than defence. We should not seek, as do some Opposition Members, to put defence on a totally different pedestal.
  What is fundamental is to decide what is essential for the defence of this country. I took part in an interesting discussion in a sub-committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, of which I, like other hon. Members, am a member; but I am the only British member of that subcommittee. The sub-committee heard a report given by a German specialist on the Soviet Union. In the context of defence cuts he said that it was interesting that the West had lowered its guard year after year, ever since the creation of NATO after the initial build-up, and yet the Soviet Union had shown no signs of wanting to test the West's defences. He said the reason why the Russians would never test NATO lay in the involvement of the United States in the NATO arrangements in the defence of Europe. So long as the United States was committed in that way the Russians

  551
  could be expected not to test our defences.
  I have warned in a previous defence debate that Europeans would be foolish to feel that for the sake of some special relationship the United States would always stay in Europe, in contrast to their policy in Asia, from which they appear gradually to be withdrawing. I do not rule out the possibility of an American withdrawal from Europe, although Americans repeatedly reassure me that that is totally unlikely. I could argue that the essential minimum defence requirement—not just for Britain but for any European nation, and the European nations in concert, in the Eurogroup—is a defence commitment sufficient to ensure that the United States does not feel compelled to say "The Europeans are leaving everything to us. They have washed their hands of defence. They want us to take on the whole military burden. We shall not stand for it, and we shall withdraw." We cannot allow things to go that far. Up to that stage there is room for manoeuvre.
  A healthy British economy is essential to the United States and other members of the Western Alliance. We can have a healthy economy only if we trim expenditure, such as that on defence. That was the reason for the fundamental review.
  I hope that Opposition Members listened carefully to the thoughtful words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State regarding his attitude to defence cuts and what he would regard as going too far. Although we are still living in the realms of rumour, I believe that the Opposition should surely trust the good sense and good faith of Ministers in the Defence Department who will not stand for British defence falling below that necessary minimum.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: It is a great pleasure to be called to speak following the contribution made by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). Given time, he and I could find a good deal of common ground on defence topics. I hope that living in rumour proves to be more painful than living in reality.
  552
  This debate is useful since it gives hon. Members the chance to try to influence events rather than react to them—to stop the crash rather than to concern ourselves with picking up the pieces. As we look at people on their daily rounds, doing their Christmas shopping, filling the football terraces, meeting in pubs, we wonder at this late hour whether they realise the way in which world events are trending. Those events may affect the way in which those people work and play and they may also affect their freedom and all they admire and love.
  It is a chilling fact that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries are arming more strenuously, more scientifically and on a larger scale than ever before. In recent years 200,000 more men have been recruited to the already massive Armed Forces of the Soviet Union. In the last four years 16 more divisions have been added, and the Warsaw Pact countries have produced 500 more aircraft. There are apparently three Warsaw Pact divisions for every one NATO division. The Warsaw Pact countries have 50 per cent. more men than we have under arms, they have nearly three times as many tanks—and so the story continues.
  These are the facts we must put across to the country so that people know the truth. We must ask ourselves why, after 20 years, the Soviet navy is going in for attack carriers. Can the Russians claim that they must have those carriers to defend their internal communications? Of course they cannot. One can only suggest that those carriers are designed to threaten our sea trade bringing supplies, particularly petrol, round the Cape.
  While the British Cabinet contemplates further reductions in defence expenditure—reductions of hundreds of millions without loss of commitment—the Russians maintain a two-year conscription and forces grossly in excess of any possible defence need. They have been carrying out large numbers of underground nuclear tests. Soon the Soviet forces will exceed those of the United States. Do they require all those forces for defence? The facts appear to be otherwise. The British military observers who watch the Warsaw Pact exercises report back that the Warsaw Pact troops endlessly carry out river crossing exercises with Snorkel tanks and

  553
  shock armies. Is that an exercise of defence? Are we to believe that the Soviets are arming against China? Surely the equipment is too complex and is designed for activity against the West rather than on the Chinese front.
  We should also take account of the cohesive nature of Russian society, coupled with the ability of the Soviet authorities to manipulate public opinion. Krushchev once said,
  "The day that we Communists give up our struggle for the world will be the day the shrimp has learned to whistle on the mountain tops."
  I sometimes wish Opposition Front Bench spokesmen adopted such vivid phraseology.
  The Soviet Union is now deeply involved in the war in Angola. It has sufficient power available to ensure that the MPLA could win major military victories in Angola. It knows that Congress will not authorise a full American military commitment to the opposing forces of the FNLA and UNITA. It has been encouraged by its success in turning Somalia into a Soviet colony on the east coast of Africa.
  Admiral Gorshkov has made crystal clear the importance to Russia of sea power not only to fight wars but also to achieve political aims in peace-time. Yesterday Admiral Hill-Norton, in an important speech, noted improvements in the strategic and tactical ability of the Soviet nothern fleet. They appear to seek the ability to cut the lifelines between Europe and North America, and Europe and its vital oil supplies. Yet at this precise moment in world history, our Government contemplate options which could create a snowball effect within NATO—an alliance that has shielded the West during my lifetime.
  NATO's success is its greatest problem. How do we put over to young people its essential role in the world? My grandfather saw the beaches of Gallipoli and my father was at Dunkirk. When I was a schoolboy at the time of the Korean War, it seemed highly unlikely that I would get by without being involved in a world war. NATO can claim a lot of credit for the fact that it has not happened.
  554
  I visited BAOR a few months ago and was desperately concerned at the conditions there. There was a shortage of ammunition, and vehicle and electronic spares were at a dangerously low level. When I recall what other countries are doing to protect themselves and their allies, I am frankly ashamed of my country.
  In an interesting letter to The Times, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) set out some figures. We devote 10·8 per cent, of Government expenditure to defence. In France the figure is 19·1 per cent. and in West Germany 24·7 per cent. In Britain 3·4 per cent. of the men aged between 18 and 45 are serving in the Armed Forces. In France the figure is 4·8 per cent. and in West Germany 4 per cent.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): While I do not seek to quarrel with the figures the hon. Member has given, would he pay attention to the fact that his hon. Friend quoted figures in The Times from the military balance in which there were specific reservations on the proportion of Government expenditure because each country has a different public expenditure pattern?
  Mr. Townsend: I take note of the Minister's comments, but my hon. Friend had a lot of other comparisons which were equally valid.
  With many of my colleagues, I have been to Northern Ireland to see our forces there. One cannot help but be impressed by their professionalism. Their determination and courage is a source of inspiration to us all. But their morale cannot indefinitely remain so high in the face of such apparent indifference from many Left-wing members of the Cabinet. The dissettlement and division within the Cabinet today will be tomorrow's discontentment and dissatisfaction among our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
  The Secretary of State has fought bravely in public and behind the scenes for a respectable size of defence budget. Let it never be said of him, as someone discussing South Africa's racial crime once said of Smuts, "He knew what was right, but he did what was wrong." The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, having played hard for an east of Suez rôle for the first half, then changed sides

  555
  and played the other way round. Perhaps it helped his career, but it hindered the reputation of Parliament. Has the world forgotten the lesson of the events that led up to the Second World War? Are we once again putting present comfort before future safety and saying that war could never happen because we do not want it to happen? Are we believing in détente just because we want to believe in it?
  Even at this late hour I appeal to the Government to trust the people and to tell them the truth—tell them about the altering balance of military power in the world, tell them why NATO must have a flexible response, tell them of the dangers of lowering the nuclear threshold and tell them that for these reasons, whatever else is to be cut, defence is to be cut no further. Safety lies beyond sacrifice.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I was very sad when listening to the peroration of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). He spent a little time deploying his arguments about the possible capability of the Soviet Union and how they are going about things. But nobody in their Parliament stands up and denigrates their Armed Forces in the way which the hon. Member adopted tonight. He spoke about disgraceful conditions and shortage of resources and equipment. He might wonder what contribution he has made to the stability, credibility and morale of the Armed Forces. He has run it to a pretty low level. I am not saying that hon. Members should not criticise, but I find the terms he used pretty horrifying. The first part of his speech was quite interesting, but I regret the tone in which he finished.
  Mr. Townsend: I criticised the shortage of electronic and vehicle spares in BAOR and had nothing but praise for the Service men using them.
  Mr. Brown: I am sure the KGB will be very interested to hear what he said. They would employ him tomorrow. He would be an excellent PR man for them.
  I do not normally intervene in defence debates. I like listening to the experts,
  556
  but the more I listen to them the more discouraged I become. I do not believe that these experts understand the changing nature of our society, and if they believe that efficiency, effectiveness and readiness to respond must be equated with the amount of money spent, they are quite wrong. I defer, of course, to their expertise, but some of us understand that fact even though we do not claim to have any expertise.
  I pay a tremendous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is one of the best Secretaries of State for Defence we have had for a very long time. He is trying very hard—far more than his predecessors in the last Conservative Government—to get defence forces which knit in with our NATO commitments and are able to carry out our requirements. The continual haggling about whether he is spending enougn money begs the question whether we are efficient. From the assurances I have received from him, I am satisfied that he is ensuring that this country is adequately and properly defended and able to play its rôle within the NATO alliance.
  I intervene on a more mundane matter. I declare an interest because I am Vice-President of the Welfare Committee of the 444 Squadron Air Training Corps—a little below the level of most experts here. All I do is glide. That is hardly what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath was talking about in his great forays abroad inspecting stocks or ammunition. In my area, the opportunity to serve in the ATC is a great opportunity for young men to learn self-discipline and to take part in a number of activities. The squadron which I support has one of the largest collection of Duke of Edinburgh Awards and other awards made by the Ministry of Defence. I am proud of them.
  I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State of Defence for the Royal Air Force for his courtesy and friendliness in discussing many matters with me. I would not wish to put to him tonight questions we are due to discuss later. However, the Air Force provides a good deal of equipment for the ATC, but if the Corps wants a little more than the basic equipment, it can get it only from surplus stores. People have tried to explain to me, but I cannot understand why the Ministry cannot sell as job lots

  557
  such items as helmets, goggles, flying overalls and jackets which are necessary for these young boys when they are flying.
  It is cold at this time of the year, and the gliding school will be operating over Christmas. It is extremely cold in gliders with open cockpits. One cannot argue that the boys should have this equipment as of right, but surely the Ministry of Defence could make a different arrangement for the sale of surplus equipment.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has offered to discuss this question with me later, and I therefore do not press him for an immediate answer. But there must be a better arrangement available which would avoid the lads in the ATC having to buy their equipment at phenomenal prices from surplus store proprietors who get it at very low cost from the Department. I have a piece of equipment to show my hon. Friend which cost the ATC lads between £7 and £9 at a store for surplus equipment. I do not know why the Department operates in this way, and why it should sell to such stores when it could sell to the ATC and help that organisation.
  There is another aspect of ATC activities which worries me. It is the insurance position of the gliding instructors, who are mainly civilians. I am not satisfied with the situation. These people, voluntarily and without pay, train young men to glide. If anything happens to the instructors while they are gliding there is no guarantee that their dependants will be taken care of. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the situation?
  I understand that if in the event of an accident the instructor is found to have been negligent in terms of the Air Force manual, he will get no compensation. If that is true, something is radically wrong. We cannot expect men and women to help train young people if the instructors are to be treated in this manner.
  I have listened to the discussions in this House about Diego Garcia and whether the Americans should have been given a licence to operate there. No one has ever referred to the island further to the north called Socotra. It is located in the neck of the Indian Ocean. My information is that it is bristling with weaponry
  558
  and communications put there by the Soviet Union and that it is loaded with Soviet marines. I seem to recall that at some time in our history Socotra was British. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us what is happening on the island. If it is bristling with Soviet weaponry and communications systems, we must view the question of Diego Garcia in a different light.
  At this time in our history, when we are attempting to get the maximum efficiency and value from the money we spend on defence, it is sad that we should debate this continuation Order only once in five years. I am not a great believer in the Executive—perhaps that is because I am not a member of it. I believe in giving the Executive only limited power, and that does not mean, in this case, power for five years. I hope that we shall take another look at this arrangement. I would rather have the Order dealt with once a year, because that arrangement would give the House much closer control over these matters, than leave it to the Executive and its advisers. I recognise that that might be inconvenient for Ministers, but the question of their convenience takes second place to the importance of ensuring adequate control, which is not provided by a five-year arrangement.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: Tonight's debate is supposed to be basically about discipline. I believe our Armed Forces to be the best disciplined in the world, and when the recruiting advertisements refer to "the professionals" they are accurate. However, a professional Service must be able to look to career stability, and that stability is now at stake for those who are serving their country with such loyalty and dedication in the Services.
  The major review conducted earlier this year was supposed to have provided stability for the next decade, yet after only a few months we are hearing strong rumours that a further major review is now under consideration. These rumours are so strong that there must be some substance to them.
  When the Government cut defence they tend to cut real strength, whereas with other services the cuts are rather in projected growth. The strength of the

  559
  Services is being cut at the time when our need for them is greater than ever, given the seriousness of the potential threat which has been described by so many hon. Members today.
  The members of the Services must sadly come to the conclusion that Labour Governments do not care. I except from that accusation the present Defence Ministers because I believe that they do care, but the Government generally have shown that they do not care about defence. In doing so they have followed the pattern set by previous Labour Administrations.
  I should like to say a brief word about the effect of defence cuts on employment. As a result of the previous defence review, 50,000 or 60,000 jobs are to be lost—twice as many as are involved in Chrysler. What a tremendous uproar there would be if there were a similar decision in industry.
  The rumour seems to be that the Chancellor's demands are for "the same again"—that is, for cuts of the same huge size as we had in the recent Defence Review. But this time the cuts will be far harder to achieve because we are now at the critical level, the minimum below which we cannot go. I was amazed to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army say the other day that now we could not even provide for the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace on a daily basis. That is an incredible state of affairs.
  I have carried out some research into the strength of the Navy and I find that the Government are reducing its manpower to a figure lower than it has ever been since 1895. At the same time, we see a rapidly growing and extremely competent modern Soviet navy, presenting a far greater potential threat than any threat we have faced at sea before.
  The Minister of Defence is in Brussels at the moment attending a NATO meeting, and one must wonder what is being said to him by his colleagues. Does he believe that some special position similar to that of tiny Luxembourg, is necessary for us in defence as the Government have sought with oil.
  What commitments can we cut? I suppose we could withdraw from the very
  560
  few remaining overseas outposts. We could give Gibraltar to Spain, though I do not think that suggestion would find much favour on the other side of the House. We could give the Falkland Islands to Argentina. We could give Belize to Honduras. We could give Hong Kong to the Chinese. If we were to give away all our remaining commitments, it would make little difference to expenditure.
  The matters which are now at issue are absolutely fundamental to the defence of this country. Should we give up the protection of the sea lanes in the Eastern Atlantic? We cannot rely instead on the American navy, which has itself been halved in recent years. We are the predominant Navy in the Eastern Atlantic and we could not find anybody else to fill that rôle. We could reduce our commitment in Central Europe an area to which the Minister of Defence has referred in the past as being vital. In Central Europe we are outnumbered by three or four to one by the Soviet Union in terms of conventional weapons.
  There are two alternatives nearer home. We could reduce the air defence of Great Britain. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that we would not do that, or that he would feel it necessary to resign from his office should there be any insistence that the air defence of Great Britain be reduced from its already low level. Or the Government could scuttle from Northern Ireland and save substantially by doing so.
  The Secretary of State, in his speech at the Camberley Staff College to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred, seems to have come to recognise the dangers. But I think he is mistaken when he talks about the will of the people. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to lead the people and that the people are willing to be led. The common sense of the people of this country is perhaps underestimated by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Kosygin has admitted that 25 per cent. of the whole of the income of the Soviet Union is being spent on armaments and military matters. If that country, with its enormous capacity, is spending 25 per cent. of its GNP on armaments, the people of Britain surely have the common sense to see that we must maintain our present level of defence at a

  561
  much more modest level. The will of the people still exists, and they have more sense than have the left wing of the Labour Party. We cannot take risks in this matter.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is generally cast in the rumours as the hatchet man. He is a former Minister of Defence and this makes it all the worse because he cannot plead ignorance. If he insists on mammoth cuts in defence beyond those which we have already seen, it shows that he is fundamentally wrong in his political judgment and certainly cannot be the champion of a free society.
  It is the duty of any Government to defend the people and their way of life.
  In the Naval Discipline Act, which is what we are supposed to be debating tonight, it is stated that every person who fails in his duty or is negligent in the performance of his duty is liable to be dismissed with disgrace from Her Majesty's Service. That would be a fitting end for any Government who neglected to do their duty in defending the country. I appeal to the Government to think again if not from the point of view of their duty, then for the sake of their own self-interest. They should remember that there are more votes to be had from defending this country than from leaving it defenceless.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. McCusker: In the dying moments of this debate I make no apology for drawing the attention of the House back to the brutal, squalid and bloody reality of the real cost of defence. The real cost of defence, in my eyes, is the cost in terms of the lives of the innocent boys and men who are dying in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency.
  I hope that I shall not be accused of being provincial or of suffering from myopia if I concentrate on my own constituency. Over the past six months it has been the cockpit of the conflict between what the Provisionals call the "British war machine" and the Republican movement in Northern Ireland. I do not want to bore hon. Members, but I should like to bring the facts to their attention once again.
  The equivalent of a company of men have been wiped out in County Armagh
  562
  so far in this campaign. Fifty-six Regular soldiers have died and 14 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—nine Regulars in the last six months and five UDR men. Is it not sad to think that on that green hill not so far away, outside Crossmaglen, three teenage boys lost their lives because, as a result of an attempt to placate the Republicans during the period of so-called cease-fire, a post was dismantled in which those three young men could have found refuge while performing their particular duty. The five UDR men killed were all shot in the back, in disgusting and cowardly ambushes.
  When I consider the circumstances of the past two weeks and recall that the spearhead battalion, which was moved into my constituency at the beginning of September, following the beginning of these events, has moved out, to be redeployed elsewhere, I really start to worry again, because in some way we have to destroy the myth of the infallibility of the Irish Republican Army in South Armagh.
  To some extent the House contributes to that myth of infallibility. It is not very often that I agree with Mr. Paddy Short, the Republican spokesman in Crossmaglen, but I agree with what he said last week, according to the Belfast Telegraph:
  "We want someone to explode the myth of South Armagh. The impression the outside world gets is that you are tripping over gunmen when you come here, but, as you can see, I'm sure, everything's like a normal countryside."
  It is not quite like a normal countryside, but it is not bandit country. It is not South Vietnam. The total population can be measured in thousands, and the total number of active Service men of the IRA can be measured in tens rather than hundreds. That myth has to be destroyed—and destroyed by the same sort of initiative as the Metropolitan Police showed here last weekend.
  As someone confronted by terrorism for seven years, I found it a tremendous boost and filip to see the security forces for once in front of the terrorists. Up to now we have always found ourselves struggling after the event. The initiative has always been lacking. This weekend we saw that the initiative can be grabbed from the terrorists. I hone that Her Majesty's Forces in South Armagh will show that sort of initiative.

  563
  Road blocking is essential. Do not let anyone try to convince us that it is not. But we must give the forces increased powers, so that if there is interference with their works, although they may not find it possible to take action at the time of the interference, they can, if it is possible to identify them, arrest the people concerned and charge them with interference with Army works. Such increased powers would be of assistance to the Army and a deterrent to the people who are interfering with Army works.
  Mention has been made of the morale of our troops in South Armagh. It should be emphasised that the conditions under which these men exist is Forkhill and Crossmaglen are an indictment of every one of us here. They are having to wade through muck six inches deep before going out—frequently to sacrifice their lives.
  Is it any wonder that the IRA can run that country with their tails up when our boys are suffering in those conditions? The Under-Secretary is, I know, concerned and has shown tremendous interest in the events in my constituency and in Northern Ireland generally. I ask him to look at this problem. We have to improve morale and provide the men with proper conditions and recreational facilities.
  I deal next with the UDR, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) was talking earlier. If we are to attempt to reduce the number of tours of duty that soldiers have to do and to reduce the number of Regular soldiers in Northern Ireland, we have to use our own local UDR. I pay tribute to their courage, their effort and their sacrifice. Recently, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the regiment had done and was doing magnificent work throughout the Province and that it had the fullest support of the Government. I endorse that statement and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will do the same.
  This year, at a time when my constituents in the UDR are being murdered in disgraceful circumstances, 222 men applied to join the regiment. We have to set against that the fact that 166 men were discharged. But the increase of 60 shows the measure of support that the regiment has.
  564
  Of the 166 who were discharged, 84 resigned, leaving 82 about whom I am extremely concerned. I know that some of them were discharged for the best of reasons and deserved to be discharged, but I also know that others were discharged without being given a reason. If the reason was that they were involved in subversion, or in para-military organitions, they should have been told. No one wants them in the UDR. Other members of the UDR do not want them. Unfortunately, however, by not disclosing to them the reasons why they were being put out we created uncertainty amongst the remainder. We affected morale and, in effect, we branded them, because it may be that they are not members of the UVF, as was alleged by certain members of the SDLP.
  Everyone has branded these men. Many of them were full-time workers in the UDR. If anything can be laid against them they should be charged with the offences alleged against them or told that they are being discharged, instead of their being brought before their commanding officer and told to leave their equipment and go, as happened in two cases brought to my notice. Many of them have no other source of employment. Having served in the regiment for two or three years, suddenly they are destroyed. It would not happen in any other employment and it should not happen in the UDR.
  The situation could be helped if we formed more full-time units of the UDR, not to do static duty but to perform operational work. Because of the employment situation and because in agriculture at this time there is not the same pressure. It is time that an appeal was made to recruit men into full-time units of the UDR. I am sure that it would bring a favourable response.
  Again, if these men are being shot at they need better practice. The only firing range is about 50 miles away, and that can be used only on occasional weekends, because there is tremendous pressure to use it. I know that the Government are considering a new range in County Armagh. I ask them to hurry it along. We have our priorities wrong when we close a range for amenity reasons. We should tell the weekend sailors who do not join the UDR that

  565
  they must sail somewhere else when target practice is necessary.
  I pay tribute to the Minister. At midnight on Monday night, on a lonely Armagh road, I was stopped by an Army patrol. After six years, I could not have been treated in a better fashion. I did not identify myself, but I was treated with every courtesy—I might almost say with kindness. The soldiers searched my car. I had a few words with them. I hope that it is reassuring to those people who are worried about the morale of the troops there to know that after this period of time these young men were all looking forward to going home for Christmas. I hope that they will enjoy themselves. I hope that they will be alive to do so. I congratulate them on their excellent work.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the Ulster Defence Regiment and inform the House whether he has any information, by written or unwritten instruction, about any restrictions on members of the Ulster Defence Regiment engaging Provisional IRA terrorists if they are observed?
  Mr. McCusker: I do not want to go into that matter in any detail. I shall discuss it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has brought a sense of frontline reality to the debate. He mentioned the way in which our young men in Ireland are perfoming their duties in great difficulty and danger. I should like to add that our feelings are with them as much tonight as every night and that we support them in carrying out their very difficult job.
  The Bill and the Acts that we are renewing form the backcloth to the efficiency of our Armed Services. The Acts have been renewed for a long time. They were based on a great deal of experience in peace and war and contain a great deal of wisdom and humanity. I suggest that any changes need careful consideration and I have no doubt that the changes, especially those embodied in Clause 5 of the Bill, were introduced after a great deal of thought and con-
  566
  sideration. I hope that the Select Committee will hear all the reasons for those changes.
  It is right for the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee so that the Committee may go into the important backcloth to the efficiency of our professional volunteer Armed Forces. I and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious about the rumours, which are rife at present, that there may be further substantial cuts in the Armed Forces.
  I should like to draw attention to the popular edition of the White, Paper on the Defence Review last February. That document, which was written in August this year, contains an introduction by the Secretary of State. I compliment—not congratulate—the Government's defence team for stating so clearly the threats that we face from the Soviet Union. It has clearly appreciated the full situation set it out in a popular document, and given lectures and talks throughout the country. The country owes it a debt. In the introduction the Secretary of State for Defence says:
  "The need is not for an extravagant defence but an adequate one. It is not easy to reconcile conflicting objectives and the balance must be adjusted from time to time. But the Government believes that the course upon which it is now set makes best sense for Britain."
  Some hon. Members did not agree that it was the "best sense for Britain" because we did not believe that the cuts that were announced matched the threats and the imbalance between the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. If it was the best sense for Britain why are we talking about further cuts now?
  Many of our people are appalled at the possibility of further substantial cuts in our defences. At the time of the last defence review I disagreed with the Labour Party not on its appreciation of the threat but on the way it believed it could carry out, without risk, the severe cuts that it planned for the forces over the next few years. I felt that the cuts increased rather than decreased the chances that the Soviets might be tempted, without a major war, to seek to assert their will over our raw material interests or other interests in one way or another. I felt convinced that the proposed cuts would disturb our allies at the time and encourage them to seek ways of cutting their forces.

  567
  I was even more anxious at that time because I thought that the cuts that were made after the defence review would start to cloud the will of this country to resist the threats that we face, whether from blackmail, political pressure or even a major adventurous policy by the Soviets. People are bound to be more anxious today when they hear these rumours. But how much more anxious must be the Armed Forces. I can imagine the conversations that are going on today about these rumours, in wardrooms, gun rooms, and corporals', sergeants' and officers' messes. It would be extremely valuable if the Secretary of State came here tonight, denied the rumours, and said "Whatever we do, we shall not again severely cut our defences". The order of cuts that we have been hearing about during the last few days can only mean massive reductions in personnel, and that would be severely damaging to our interests.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House take an honourable view about defence, believing that it must have priority over all Government commitments. However, some hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches have challenged us to stand up and say whether we prefer to see cuts in welfare, education, housing and other areas for which the Government are responsible on behalf of the people of this country.
  We certainly need to spend more money on welfare. I know as much as anybody else about the need to spend more money on the disabled. We need more money spent on nursery schools and the early education of our children. Of course we do. It is popular to offer to spend more on the good things that we need so much, but what good are those things to anybody if someone else is imposing their will upon us? That is what defence is about. The Government must seek to spend enough to prevent others imposing their will upon us. I am willing to stand up before any audience and say that, much as we want and wish for more to be spent on personal needs, the overall security of this country must, as always, have priority over all other needs.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Cranky Onslow: I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary of
  568
  State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who is to wind up the debate, but in a sense this has been an anticlimatic debate for two reasons. First, the Bill, important though it is and carefully though the Select Committee will no doubt look at it, has been overshadowed in substance by the basic facts that discipline is about morale and that morale is about the rôle of the forces in our society and society's confidence in the ability of the forces to defend us.
  That fact is coupled with the undoubted evidence we have had today that hon. Members on both sides are preoccupied with doubt, questions, uncertainties and fears which are also widely expressed outside the House. The anticlimax is inevitable when we realise the Government apparently intend to do nothing on this occasion, to allay these doubts, or to tell us that our fears are groundless. The Minister of State told us that the current expenditure review was no more than part of the usual process which goes on at this time of the year. I would have thought that he had sufficient perception to tell the difference between the sound of sleighbells and the ring of sharpening axes.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) deserves to be congratulated on reading with a straight face quotations from the "Bluff and Persuasion Act". If that is the way in which the debate is to go, it will inevitably be a bit of an anticlimax because it may be that the Minister who is to reply will be unable usefully to add to or comment on current speculation. Perhaps the Secretary of State, were he here, could neither comment on nor add to the same speculation, but I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State will give the House an undertaking that they will report our mood faithfully to their colleagues in the Government and especially to their colleagues in the Cabinet, because there is no doubt that this has been an important debate on a most important theme.
  There have been powerful speeches from both sides of the House including that from the other side of the House by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams), who should be congratulated on his triumph in his election to the Defence Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party—a rout of the Left if ever

  569
  there was one. There was also the contribution from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and from my side valuable contributions came from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) and others.
  I welcome the contributions made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). It is good to hear contributions from their Bench because it indicates the value which they place upon the forces of the United Kingdom. It contrasts well with the last occasion when we had a large-scale defence debate without any similar contribution from them. I hope that they and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland will not hesitate to make contributions of this kind. Let neither they nor our troops in Northern Ireland think that we have forgotten them. When I visited Crossmaglen I saw for myself the daunting task which our troops face and I drew encouragement from the high morale which they displayed in their task. I echo what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester and by hon. Members from Ulster about sending our good wishes to the troops at this time of the year above all.
  I come back to the main theme—cuts or rumours of cuts. I can make the point most effectively by listing, not necessarily in any particular order, the sort of cuts we are talking about, not in monetary terms but in terms of limbs to be lopped off our defences. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and others referred to some of them.
  One of the top priorities, I suppose, for any cuts must be the interceptor version of the MRCA. Another must be the "Invincible" and the maritime Harrier which goes with it. Another could be the number of troops we keep in BAOR. Another could be a dockyard. Another could be the Army's Lynx order. Another could be some of the ships which the Royal Navy mans at present. Another could be a decision not to replace the
  570
  ageing Shackletons and Gannets with new early-warning aircraft.
  If hon. Members think that I am being a little sensational, I ask them to realise that to remove £700 million from the annual defence expenditure means crippling cuts, which must include two or three or four of those I have listed, and not just one of them or some other easy option which might be cobbled up from the recesses of the Whitehall defence machine.
  If hon. Members are prepared to take these possibilities seriously, as I ask them to, they will realise that the effects on industry of such cuts could be a disaster. To cut the interceptor version of the MRCA would gravely prejudice employment prospects at Preston and Filton. The production lines for the airframes, engines and avionics would begin to taper ominously away, and unit costs would go up. The whole project would be undermined. The Germans and Italians are our partners in the enterprise. What would they say?
  Again, if the "Invincible" were to be scrapped, what would the impact be on the shipbuilding industry? The intervention of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) was pertinent in pointing out what a curious celebration it would be if the first act of this nationalising Government were to cut prospects away from industries which they have taken into public ownership. What about the effect on overseas orders and the loss of confidence among customers abroad? The order books in the last 12 months have already begun to taper away because of the threat of nationalisation itself.
  But that is the least important aspect. More important still is the effect on our defences in being, above all on the NATO Alliance, within which we must remain if we are to have any collective security. Without the MRCA, what happens to NATO's air capability? Would the Government buy another aircraft instead? Would they "go American", as they have done before? Would they buy the F15 or the F16, just as they looked for Phantoms to replace the British aircraft scrapped by the last Labour Government? I do not see the right hon. Gentleman relishing having to defend that action.

  571
  What about our Atlantic defences? If we scrap ships that we need if we are to maintain a defence capability in the approaches to the country's own waters, we shall, to quote from David Fairhall in The Guardian on Monday
  "… be facing fundamental issues such as whether we can any longer operate a comprehensive naval force in the Eastern Atlantic."
  That is the dimension of the cuts talked about in purely numerical terms, but what is at stake is the whole credibility of NATO. We have had public warnings about this from Dr. Luns, Admiral Sir Terence Lewin and Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton. I would not be surprised to hear that the Prime Minister, on his recent unsuccessful travels, was given private warnings by the French President or the German Chancellor, or that he has had conveyed to him warnings from the President of the United States. Perhaps the Prime Miinster should be reflecting on the statement made by President Giscard d'Estaing before the Rome Conference that nations weak in defence can hardly expect to be heard on other subjects of international importance. It may be that he can see some connection there.
  Given that that is so, there is one question which the House is entitled to ask the Minister tonight: was the statement by the Secretary of State in Brussels at a Press conference on Monday night just another bromide, or was it a serious undertaking? Both The Times and the Financial Times reported the Secretary of State as saying that he pledged Britain to consult our NATO allies on any defence cuts. I am sorry if I appear to be harsh in using the word "bromide", but we have heard phraseology such as that before. The term "consultation" has been used to cover decisions which have been notified ex-post facto and which have not involved any genuine consultation or negotiation in any way. Let us at least now have an undertaking that if there is any question in the Government's mind of making cuts in NATO's capability, there will be genuine, thorough and exhaustive consultation with our allies before the Government come to the House and tell us what they propose to do.
  Indeed, I hope that the Government will go further and take the House into their confidence in the consultation pro-
  572
  cess because they should by now have realised that most hon. Members see that there is a point beyond which defence cannot be cut and remain credible. If there is a difference between those who accept that proposition, it is over where that precise point should be. It may move up or down with circumstances. It is possible that conditions could require greater expenditure on defence in times of great tension or threat. It is possible that in terms of genuine peace and accord the point would move down the scale, and that surely is what we all wish to see.
  I recognise that there are exceptions to the rule, and one is the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) who appears to hold to some curious conspiracy theory. He believes that the quality Press has been putting around an alarmist campaign. The hon. Gentleman and others who use the term "quality Press" in that sense usually mean the papers which they do not read, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not necessarily one of the most regular readers of the Daily Telegraph.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I am.
  Mr. Onslow: I am glad that that newspaper's successful and sustained important campaign to draw attention to the situation that we face in defence has captured the hon. Gentleman's notice. It may be that he reads other papers besides the Daily Telegraph. It may even be that he reads the Sun. I should not, however, until this moment have thought that he was one of the readers of the Sun who never got beyond page 3. If he had opened his Sun yesterday and turned back to page 2 he would have seen the following comment in a powerful editorial, which I commend to him, on the subject of defence cuts:
  "It is only a matter of months since we were being told that our defences were at bedrock.
  The defence of the realm must not be made a sacrificial lamb to please Labour's anti-NATO Left Wing."
  "Quality Press" is an accolade that Mr. Murdoch might be happy to have, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be so free in accusing the papers of a campaign of alarmism when we get words such as that in a paper such as the Sun.

  573
  The Daily Mail of 25th November carried a powerful argument headed:
  "A stab in the back for Britain".
  The article set out the situation as seen from within the Services, and it did so in a purely factual way. There was nothing alarmist about it.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that he is helping my case, which is that there is a powerful and concerted campaign in certain quarters of the Conservative Press to prevent the reductions from taking place, and he is quoting the papers.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member's tortuous mind has led him to the wrong conclusion. The fact may simply be that many people are understandably worried. I believe that that is a great deal nearer the truth than the conspiracy theory which the hon. Gentleman, for reasons into which I will not go, may find more congenial.
  At any rate, when the Press do speculate on this matter, they produce for us evidence of the extent of concern. In the hon. Member's reading, no doubt today's Daily Express was included. It contained a report about an alliance between Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Hugh Scanlon and the Secretary of State for Defence to soft-pedal on defence cuts on the grounds that, if defence orders are axed, thousands of jobs may be lost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that some hon. Members opposite do not regard this as a pure conspiracy. I see that they regard it as a genuine expression of concern. Perhaps the hon. Member for Salford, East had better have a word with his hon. Friends afterwards. I did not plant that report, and I do not suppose for a moment that they did.
  We must know that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are deeply worried about the effect of any further defence cuts. That anxiety was well put into words by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) It was put very well indeed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, who asked whether we were not moving towards a situation in which we might as well scrap defence entirely—the same proposition as I just formulated.
  574
  The hon. Gentleman also admitted a disillusion with his former ministerial master, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he admired and served as a PPS. I do not confess any similar admiration, looking back as I do on the long and ignoble roll-call of cuts executed during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of the office of Secretary of State—piecemeal cuts, progressive cuts and all too often cuts which involved a breach of pledges upon which the ink was hardly dry. So the hon. Gentleman has allowed excessive loyalty to cloud his judgment here.
  But at least I can commend to him and the House one statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in those faraway days. On 5th March 1969—this must have been about the seventh round of cuts in the series from 1964—he said:
  "I am proud to have played a part in making these improvements and this change of priorities possible"
  —the "Bluff and Persuasion" Act having force there again—
  … but I warn my hon. Friends"
  —here, for once, truth breaks through—
  "that once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders."—[Official Report, 5th March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
  So when the hon. Member for Horn-church says that the Chancellor is now abusing his influence to call for disproportionate defence cuts, would he care to remind his right hon. Friend of those words of his? Would he care to tell him that many among us see great force in them, even if we have lost our confidence in the man who spoke them? And would he care to say that, if it comes to a crunch and the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence want to know whether they have allies, the answer is that they have allies on both sides of the House, allies on all sides outside the House and allies in Europe? That is something from which the Secretary of State will, I hope, draw some encouragement, and which will enable us to look back on this as a day when we debated fears which subsequent events proved groundless.
  But we must not omit to judge the situation in the NATO, the European,

  575
  context. In the current public anxieties, I do not believe that I am alone in detecting a remarkable similarity in public mood with the public mood during the political debate in the referendum campaign. Certainly whenever I spoke to audiences of all parties during that campaign, I detected a striking awareness in the mind of the general public of the need for us to combine with our partners in Europe to defend ourselves. It was not something that was within the particular and immediate orbit of the Treaty of Rome, but there was an awareness in the public's mind that we were a European nation and that our allies in Europe would provide us with the protective security which we must have to survive. That feeling was not confined to old soldiers or to those who were directly involved in the horrors of war. It applied pretty well across all classes and to people of all ages.
  I am sorry that apparently the Secretary of State is not of like mind on this point, because when he addressed the Staff College recently the final point of his address was:
  "To the extent that there is increasing political pressure on defence expenditure, this reflects an increasing disenchantment with defence. This is perhaps most marked amongst younger people. I don't think that there is anything mysterious or sinister about this. A large number of people in Western Europe have grown up with no experience of war, and cannot accept or even comprehend, the possibility of war taking place again in Europe, and the prospect of nuclear war is the most unthinkable of all."
  Unthinkable it may be, but that does not mean that we should not attempt to think about it. The Secretary of State is profoundly wrong if he believes that people in this country generally and in Europe at large are uninterested in defence or do not know its value.
  The dangers of war are brought very close to most of us every day. Two-dimensionally and safely locked behind a glass screen, the television in our living room has brought violence right into our lives, far too often for comfort and far too often for any easy disbelief in the need for defence. The Great War, the Second World War and more immediately Vietnam, Angola, Ulster and the events in our own streets remind us of the importance of paying "an insurance premium", to borrow again the words of Sir Peter
  576
  Hill-Norton, which is essential if we are to have protection.
  The great majority of people in this country understand that, and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford put the point more vividly than I can. Therefore, fundamental decisions on the defence of this country must not be taken in economic panic by a Cabinet pressured by an unholy alliance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Energy and the other Members of the Left-wing Mafia.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud reminded us, the world is getting tougher. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) illustrated in a vivid opening of a window into the Kremlin, in his devastating, satirical and effective speech, the Russians have every reason at present to believe that they are on the brink of victory. That fact alone may explain to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) why it is that the Russians continue to put guns before grain and why they expect their people to accept sacrifices in food supplies, housing and social services. It is in order that they can maintain their defence expenditure at the grossly high level to which they have recently increased it—for reasons which are certainly not designed to do us any good. I hope that the Minister of State will agree that we must not allow the Government to gamble with the cohesion of the European alliance. When he says—and I applaud him for it—that he would "not remain a member of a Government which undermined the collective security of the West", I ask him to take back to his colleagues the message that this House will not permit a Government which did that to stay in office.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): This has been a combined debate in which we have debated both the Armed Forces Bill and more general defence matters. It is no mere formality, therefore, if in winding up I ask for the indulgence of the House, at any rate, if not for its wholehearted understanding, if I am unable to cover every point that has been made in what has been an extremely wide-ranging debate—so wide-ranging that I cannot hope to win in winding up.

  577
  I was rejected in advance by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), and described as anti-climatic by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). If I deal with the general defence issues, as the hon. Member for Woking did, to the exclusion of the Bill, those who have given a lot of thought to the speeches that they made and have probed many interesting points could fairly raise with me the fact that this is the only occasion for five years when we shall have a Second Reading debate on an Armed Forces Bill. On the other hand, if I deal with every point of detail on the Bill I shall run the risk of falling foul of those to whom the major strategic issues are paramount.
  I intend to concentrate, first, on the Armed Forces Bill, for the reasons that I have mentioned. It is rather like Brigadoon. It appears only occasionally in our parliamentary life, and it affects rights and individual freedoms in a very real sense. I do not deny the importance of the many other issues that have been raised. However, we shall have an opportunity of debating those on other occasions, and I promise that before the end of my speech I shall try to cover as many of those points as possible.
  I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Woking a sense of disappointment at the way and the form in which the debate had gone. I think that this was inevitable, because the Bill is vital, as is the Continuation Order, and so it was imperative that the Bill and the Order be debated before Christmas. As I understand it, it was the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition who suggested, during business questions—and the suggestion gained ready assent—that the debate might be broadened. Therefore, if the debate has lacked form and disappointed the hon. Gentleman a little, that is because it was inevitable if one tacked two different aspects of defence into one debate. Nevertheless, I think that the hon. Gentleman will feel, as I do, that it has been a worthwhile debate and has raised many issues that concern us.
  I am grateful, on behalf of the Government, for the general welcome that the Bill has received on both sides of the House. The procedure has been generally welcomed—particularly that of
  578
  remission to the Select Committee. If there has been one point of procedure that has caused some concern to a number of hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), it is the proposed abolition of the annual Continuation Order. I should like to assure the House that it is not in any way the Government's intention to lessen the control that Parliament has traditionally exercised over the Armed Forces by this means. I take note of the points that hon. Members have made. This is most certainly a point which can usefully be pursued by the Select Committee.
  I was asked a number of questions about the composition of the Select Committee. My understanding of it is that a Minister will not be a member, of the Select Committee but will, if necessary, give evidence, and the Select Committee will have the power to call witnesses before it, as it did on the last occasion.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my hon. Friend saying that if the Select Committee, having examined the situaton in relation to the Government's proposal to discontinue the Continuation Order, comes to a different conclusion, the Government have not taken any irrevocable decision and would be open to persuasion?
  Mr. John: I can most gladly give that assurance. Our decision is by no means irrevocable. It has been dictated by what we believe to be the realities of the last two or three years—namely, that the Continuation Order was taken formally and that the debate on general defence matters was on the Adjournment of the House. However, if it is the will of the House that it should be so, we would not have closed our minds on the subject and would give serious consideration to that point.
  Mr. Roper: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the motion which is put down to set up the Select Committee will give that Committee power to adjourn from place to place? When the Select Committee was initially set up last time, that power was not given and the Committee had to come back to the House to ask for it. On this occasion it might be preferable to do it all at once.
  Mr. John: I shall bring that matter to the attention of those who arrange such things.
  I turn to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) on Clause 2—namely, that the power now given to vary a term of service so as to reduce it might lead to insecurity. My hon. Friend's point led to some difference of interpretation between him and the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). I believe that my hon. Friend will be completely reassured when I explain the reason for this provision.
  This extra power is needed to deal conveniently with the comparatively few cases in which a soldier or airman is enlisted for a trade in which he is subsequently found to be unsuitable, when it is necessary to transfer him to another trade which has a shorter engagement. The way in which that is dealt with now is cumbersome and uneconomic, as it is necessary to discharge the Service man and then reattest him. The change will greatly simplify the administrative procedures. I can give an assurance to the House that the rights of the individual Service man will in no way be lessened by what is now proposed.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend mean that the individual Service man will still have the right to come out of the Service if he feels that the offer that is made to him is not that which he signed on for originally?
  Mr. John: This must be a consent power. My hon. Friend must know that if a man proves unsuitable for a trade and does not wish to transfer to another trade it is necessary for administrative action to be taken, with his consent.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Farnworth and Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson), referred to the increased powers that are to be given to commanding officers in Clause 5 to increase from 28 days to 60 days their power of detention. This matter was considered by the previous Select Committee and it was left open for re-examination. Since then we have considered the matter and we believe that the increased powers have great merit. We commend them to the House.
  580
  First, the increased powers will have the merit of reducing the numbers of courts martial. The number of courts martial under the present scheme causes concern, in that they involve many people for long periods. Secondly, the increased powers—this amplifies what my right hon. Friend said in opening—will avoid at one and the same time the stigma of having been tried and convicted by a court martial. They will remove the strain from the individual who has to wait for a court martial to be convened. The individual will not have to feel that a court martial will be hanging over him for a long time.
  The answer to my hon. Friends who feel that perhaps some right is being denied to the Service man is that the individual will still have the right to elect to go before a court martial. As with most elections to a higher court, that can be very much a two-edged weapon. Nevertheless, the Service man will still have that right.
  In what was generally a welcoming speech the hon. Member for Ayr expressed concern about the legal advice that commanding officers will have to take if they propose to give punishment in excess of the previous powers. I think that we should leave a more detailed examination of these matters to the Select Committee. If that is one, the Select Committee will be able to consider exactly where and how the commanding officer should take legal advice.
  I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in saying that any unacceptable delay should be avoided. It should be made abundantly clear that the primary charge to be considered under these extra powers will be disciplinary, and not the sort of civil charges which many of my hon. Friends may have in mind. I think that the certainty and speed of decision will be greatly welcomed by the Services.
  I turn to the question of civilian courts and magistrates. The question arises whether the magistrates in the new standing civilian courts would be legally qualified. The answer is that they would be so qualified, because they would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor from members of the permanent judicial staff.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth wanted to know the type of people

  581
  who would be expected to take on the job of additional magistrates in juvenile cases and in courts martial dealing with civilian cases. The people I envisage acting as such magistrates would be headmasters and social workers who serve in the community overseas. They would be the most suitable people to serve as lay members of standing civilian courts dealing with juveniles. It would be appropriate, when dealing with civilians who are accused of more serious offences, to include a civilian in the court. That would normally be a Crown servant serving in that theatre or in any related department.
  I was asked whether a NAAFI manager could undertake the task. Such a person would be inappropriate, because he would not be a Crown servant. I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking evinces considerable relief at that statement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West asked about legal aid and sought to link it with the question of increased powers. I want to reassure my hon. Friend on this matter, but at the same time I do not wish to preempt the work of the Select Committee. The rules governing the application of legal aid in the Armed Forces are clearly set out in the Regulations. In addition, those rules are explained to a Service man who might be affected. In contrast to my hon. Friend's view, I can inform him that a very high proportion of applications for legal aid are granted. If there is any dissatisfaction about a particular case hon. Members should write to me, but I would point out that well-tried channels of complaint already exist.
  There is a need for speed in disciplinary cases. The importation of legal aid arrangements could unnecessarily slow down the process. But we are always anxious to examine legal aid arrangements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West also mentioned the scale of fees. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on his statement that they are at such a level that they will not attract the best barristers and solicitors to represent an accused. I hope that the Bar and the Law Society will continue a very proud tradition of affording representation to all those who need it.
  582
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford asked whether we would extend to Colchester the arrangements for independent visitors—an idea employed in the Royal Navy. I can give him no assurance, except to say that we shall examine the situation to see whether it affords advantage. If we believe that to be the case, we shall consider the matter very carefully indeed.
  The hon. Member for Ayr directed a number of questions to me. He asked whether, after the latest trawl through the Services, there were still any bodies of personnel not subject to the discipline Acts. We have thought carefully about the matter and can think of none at the moment. Should there be any, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman later and we shall ensure that their position is brought to the attention of the Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Ayr also asked about the provision to bar members of the UDR from membership of the House of Commons. When bringing the women's Services of the Royal Navy under the Naval Discipline Act, it was necessary to amend the Disqualification Act accordingly, and the opportunity was taken to clarify an uncertainty which had arisen in the case of the UDR. The proposed amendment is of a clarifying, though essential, nature. There will, as the hon. Member pointed out, be differences between members of the UDR and members of the TAVR. However, in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland the distinction made in this matter between the UDR and the TAVR is, we believe, fairly and correctly drawn.
  The hon. Member for Ayr asked about how the reforms introduced in the last Armed Forces Act are working. I take it he was referring to the bringing into line of all offences and related punishment in the Service Discipline Acts. My right hon. Friend referred to these provisions in his opening speech and I am happy to underline what he said. When changes are introduced, it is inevitable that some time must pass before one can judge how they are working. There is a period when new arrangements have to be absorbed into the system. However, the reforms are working efficiently and making their contribution to the just and fair operation of the Services disciplinary system.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and I referred to Brigadier Maunsell's report. Will the Government consider making that report available to the House?
  Mr. John: We shall consider the matter. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether some of my hon. Friends are more pleased when I disagree with them than when I agree with them.
  Inevitably, there has been a good deal of discussion about levels of defence expenditure and I cannot let the occasion pass without making comments on the conflicting advice I have had from all parts of the House. There is concern and anxiety, and hon. Members of all parties have had a very narrow dividing line to draw between an expression of concern and anxiety and an undermining of confidence. I hope that will always be kept clear. We must never be complacent about the strength of the potential opposition. We, for our part, have never been complacent and we never intend to be, but neither must we be so alarmist about the strength of the opposition as to engender a sense of hopelessness in the military alliance. NATO is a strong and effective alliance and we are firmly committed to it. Mr. James Meacher wrote an interesting article in the October edition of the NATO Review in which he suggested that if one is unnecessarily alarmist one can produce the sense of hopelessness which should be avoided.
  Mr. Onslow: I accept that point, but there is evidence that other members of the Alliance have been willing to increase their commitment to NATO—the Canadians are the most recent example. The Americans have committed more troops into Europe. They are not alarmist, but realistic in the face of what they see as a threat which is in no sense diminishing, but is, in a real sense, increasing.
  Mr. John: I accept that that is the interpretation of both the American and Canadian action, and it is the reason that in the defence review we stated that NATO was the linchpin of our policy and that we could commit our forces best and expend our effort best in the
  584
  central region and other NATO areas. The point I was trying to make, from which I do not think the hon. Member dissents, is that it is easy to go from there to a scenario which is all black, and which therefore engenders a sense of hopelessness about whether we can adequately defend the West, which would be counter-productive to our defence effort.
  Mr. Rippon: Does the Minister agree that Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton was not being alarmist?
  Mr. John: I have read the Admiral's statements and I have never in the past found him to be so, but there is a danger of overestimating the enemy as well as underestimating it.
  There have been calls tonight for increased expenditure on defence and the Opposition have lent official support to that proposal. On the other hand, some of my hon. Friends have called for a cut in defence expenditure. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the very real limitations placed on any Minister at this time in giving answers to the sort of comments that we have been invited to take up. The public expenditure survey is still not complete. Defence is not exempt from this scrutiny, any more than any other Department. It is no more exempt now than it was under the previous Conservative Administration. Since the survey is not complete, any sums mentioned or bandied about in the debate must be hypothetical. Nevertheless, if Christopher Isherwood described himself as "I am a Camera" I can give the hon. Member for Woking an assurance that I am a sounding board, and I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the views of all hon. Members and ensure that they are drawn to the attention of those conducting the survey.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I think the House would agree with the Minister's remarks about the importance of the NATO alliance. Will he therefore agree to publish the criticisms by our partners in NATO, which are now being put to his right hon. Friend, and will he further agree that the Government will act upon those recommendations?
  Mr. John: No criticism has been directed to us on this aspect of the matter.
  The hon. Member for Ayr asked for certain undertakings. I can give him two assurances. The Government still are firmly committed to maintaining a modern and effective defence system, and cuts, if any, will be judged in that light. Secondly, if the review were to result in an important quantitative or qualitative change in the United Kingdom contribution to NATO, we should of course consult our allies. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point related to the question of reductions in advance of the outcome of the MBFR talks. I further confirm that the Government continue to adhere to the principle adopted by the Alliance that there should be no reduction in the forces stationed in Europe in advance of the MBFR agreement. On the further assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asked, I wish to make it quite clear that the Government will retain modern and effective forces in order to meet our essential commitments to NATO. There is, therefore, no question of making cuts that would leave us with ineffective forces. I hope that those assurances will be recognised as going as far to meet the hon. Gentleman as I possibly can in the circumstances.
  Mr. Younger: I am indeed grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for what he has said. When he refers to consultation with our NATO allies, does he mean that consultation will take place with them before decisions are taken, or that decisions taken could be open to alteration in the light of such consultation? Otherwise they would be meaningless.
  Mr. John: I think that the consultations that took place last time were effective, and they would be engaged in again. If there has been no agreement on how much or how little we should spend on defence, I do not think there is any agreement either on the way in which we measure defence expenditure and its burden. Some have taken the percentage of GNP as being the correct formula. Some have taken the per capita expenditure as being the correct
  586
  formula. Others have taken it as a proportion of public expenditure. This is a battle that is not resolved at the moment and, indeed, has not been resolved for a very long time.
  Let me put a point to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those who claim that massive cuts should be made in defence expenditure cannot, by representation, privately, informally or publicly, fairly claim that their constituency should be exempt from those particular cuts. I wish to make no accusation, but I must place on record that some who have shared the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on defence expenditure have made such representation in the past year. At the same time, I cannot accept that members of the Conservative Party, who have said today as they have said before that defence is paramount, are then entitled to make representations to Ministers about the effects of defence activities on their constituencies. If those activities are essential to national defence, in my view they should explain to the people in their constituencies why they are necessary.
  Coming to the reference to trade unions, one of my hon. Friends said that he speaks for the trade unions. All I can say is that in the past year we have had representations, formal and informal, from many trade union branches in the affected industries about defence cuts. The truth is that in a democracy defence is subject to consideration along with other items of public expenditure.
  What we have said is that as a Government we are pledged to a modern and effective defence. That remains our posture, and I hope the House will regard it as such.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Dormand.]

  DEFENCE
  Resolved,
  That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. John.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the OECD Support Fund Bill and the Moneylenders (Crown Agents) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  OECD SUPPORT FUND BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 1

  THE AGREEMENT
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I do not think there can be any doubt about the importance of this Bill or about the establishment of the OECD Financial Support Fund by the international agreement, as defined in Clause 1 of the Bill. It is a subject of such major importance that, were our proceedings effectively conducted, it would have been the subject of a major economic debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew attention last week to the undesirability of taking the Second Reading of a measure of this kind on a Friday morning, and protested that the Committee in the remaining stages of such a Bill should be put before the House at a late hour. I think we were all grateful then to the Patronage Secretary for having agreed that it should be taken now, at a more reasonable hour.
  It is essential that the leading industrial nations should act together to counter disorderly market conditions and exchange fluctuations by helping those members of the OECD who are in balance of payments difficulties from time to time.
  I welcome the agreement, because it involves co-operation on a scale over and beyond what we can achieve within the framework of the European Economic Community.
  As was pointed out last week, the significance of this fund is represented by the fact that the potential contribution from the United Kingdom is no less than £917 million. That may turn out to be
  588
  only a notional liability, since we might find ourselves seeking—as we have so often recently under agreements of this kind—to draw out rather more than we put in.
  We have, therefore, to consider the agreement now before the House in the context of the wider considerations of our economic policy, for clearly we shall not be able to take advantage of the support fund, and get the agreement of the other contributors to our using it, unless we establish our bona fides in our economic policy.
  We are in some difficulty already at the present time over the IMF loan. There is widespread feeling that the high demand we have made on the oil facility, partly as a result of the looseness of the drafting—or, it may be, partly as a result of our lawyers drafting it so cleverly—has meant that our loan requirements are so apportioned as to appear to get us a disproportionate share of the oil facility at the very same moment that we were going round Europe proclaiming that we might become a member of OPEC.
  Against this background we have to consider the way in which this support fund is linked with the various agreements which have been made as a result of the Rambouillet Declaration on 17th November.
  In particular, I hope that the Minister responding for the Government will give us some indication of how he sees the potential use of this new support fund linked with the rapprochment which has been reported to have been achieved between the United States and France.
  We all know that, pending the negotiation of amended articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund, every floating exchange arrangement has been technically illegal. We have also had to face the difficulty that the Americans, with no significant foreign exchange reserves except gold, have been able to intervene and maintain some degree of stability only by borrowing foreign exchange through the various swop arrangements. So I should like the Minister to give the Committee some guidance how he sees these matters linked.
  Can the Minister also tell the Committee how the new agreement will tie up with the establishment of a European

  589
  exchange stabilisation fund which is much talked about? Is it envisaged by the Government that in future a degree of stability can be achieved under these arrangements which will be more effective than those popularly described as "the snake"? We all accept that the snake is an interim measure. It was Lloyd George who said that it is always a mistake to try to jump a canyon in two stages. This new agreement lays the foundation for a total packet of measures, and we above all need something in the nature of a total packet of measures if we are to achieve a greater degree of monetary stability in the future. That is necessary both generally in Europe and internationally.
  I heard a Belgium banker saying the other day that the snake gets first fat and then thin more by accident than by design as countries leave it and as some return to it. In the words of a Chinese proverb, the snake in the bamboo is still a wriggling animal.
  We have to see the way in which this new support fund can be linked with a more effective snake. We need a larger snake. We need Britain, Italy and France permanently back. Also we need to include other countries such as Norway and Sweden, which normally follow the operations of the snake, and Switzerland included as well. We need a more stable snake. We want to ensure that the countries which are in, stay in. Do the Government feel that the new fund will enable us to achieve that desirable result?
  We also need a more flexible snake—in other words, greater flexibility in the adjustment of parities. If I may employ the bankers' language, if we are not once again to be the principal demandeur on this new support fund, we have to avoid in our general international arrangements both the extremes of "fixed" and "floating" parities. We need adjustable but relatively stable parities which can be expressed either as a "managed float" or as "flexible parities".
  Whatever happens, we cannot continue indefinitely to endure the constant depreciation in the value of the pound which is only temporarily and very expensively propped up at the moment by vast borrowings on the security of our future oil earnings. It would be right for us to have an assurance from the Government that we are not entering into this
  590
  new international agreement to add further to the vast borrowings to which they have committed the British people.
  I have no doubt that the support fund will help towards promoting international monetary stability. To that extent, we should welcome this clause and the agreement. But we should not think that the mere fact that we have collaborated with our allies to set up a fund of this kind, for which there are vast potential funds to be made available, is in any way a substitute for our own national measures to control the money supply, to stabilise our economy and to control inflation.
  We want an assurance from the Government that, as a result of the establishment of this new support fund, there will be consistent national policies in which domestic monetary operations—whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—and external monetary operations support rather than oppose each other. I believe that the way in which the Government handle this agreement and any initial procedures under it, will be once more a test of our good faith. Some anxiety has been expressed about the way in which we have handled the IMF loan. There is also some anxiety about what we may have in mind on the subject of import controls. I should like the Minister to say how he sees the fund linked to the Rambouillet Declaration which was made on 17th November, paragraph 8 of which states:
  "Growth and price stability will be fostered by maintenance of an open trading system."
  It goes on to say:
  "It is essential for the main trading nations to confirm their commitment to the principles the OECD pledge and to avoid resorting to measures by which they could try to solve their problems at the expense of others, with damaging consequences in the economic, social political fields.
  Does the Minister think we would have any chance of making the new support fund operate effectively in our interests if we acted in any way in breach of paragraph 8 of the Declaration?
  Under paragraph 8 of the Rambouillet Declaration we have clearly and overtly denounced beggar-my-neighbour policies. I ask the Minister whether in the negotiations for establishing this new fund or in the negotiations which took place prior to the Declaration on 17th November, there have been any secret agreements about import controls. I specifically ask

  591
  him whether he can assure us that there have been no secret dealings of any kind with anybody about the possible establishment of selective import controls on cars, colour television tubes, domestic electrical appliances or anything else. This is a matter of considerable importance in establishing our good faith.
  I should like to direct attention for a brief moment to what the Paymaster-General said at a conference organised by the European League for Economic Co-operation in London in September. He said:
  "We ought also to remember that it is not enough to renounce beggar-my-neighbour policies as against each other. One of the functions of intra-European co-operation is, it the long run and in our own interests, to improve world co-operation, so we must equally firmly renounce any beggar-my-neighbour policies, such as those which brought so much disaster and misery on the pre-war world, vis-a-vis other countries whether it be powerful nations like the United States or weaker countries like the less developed countries of the world.
  I mention this because if we are going to live up to these principles, to which it's not too hard to win ready assent in theory, the present recession is going to have many trying moments. At a time when unemployment is very high by post-war standards, and very high by any sensible and humane standards, I can understand very well why it is being suggested that we should restrict imports from third countries, whether other European countries or countries outside Europe. But this supposed remedy will not cure the disease.
  Import restrictions and similar measures on a scale that would have any effect to help us or any other country with its unemployment problems will quickly and inevitably be followed by retaliation which will probably be more permanent and wider in scope and will soon more than offset any marginal advantage which the original restrictions may have had on employment."
  In other words, if we have in mind any policies of that kind we may find that this important agreement would in effect be a nullity and that so much damage would be done to international monetary co-operation that the agreement, at any rate as far as we are concerned, would not fulfil its purposes.
  The Paymaster-General concluded:
  "In addition to that, and far more important than the damage done by the actual tit-for-tat that goes on in these circumstances, is that any degree of that activity will result in a general restoration of the pre-war rat-race which can only lead, not to the solution of unemployment problems and our other economic and political problems, but to disaster.
  592
  I really believe that no other word can adequately describe the consequences of the world reverting to the kind of rat-race policies that so brutally disfigured the pre-war period in which many of us grew up."
  I ask the Minister to give not only the Committee, but the House, our allies, and those with whom we are acting within the context of the OECD, the clearest possible assurance that the Government will not resort to those disaster policies. If we do not have that assurance, we might as well not debate this agreement tonight.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: I think that the Committee owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for raising a number of important points. As he said, this measure involves a commitment for the United Kingdom of £917 million. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the Shadow Leader of the House, was right to protest initially at the time originally allocated for consideration of this Bill.
  We are now in Committee, and I should like to make a few points before asking the Minister to reply. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham said that it was essential that the major industrial nations of the world should act together in the manner proposed in the Bill. Yet it is difficult to believe that the United Kingdom is joining in these arrangements purely as a potential lender. I do not think that we would be thought, at the present, to be in that capacity. Therefore, it is right for us in passing the Bill to look at some of the conditions for borrowers.
  My right hon. and learned Friend posed a number of questions which came up on Second Reading. I want to ask the Minister of State one further probing question. The agreement, in Article 1, Section 2(a)(i) specifically provides that the objectives of the Fund are to encourage and assist members to
  "avoid unilateral measures which would restrict international trade or other current account transactions".
  We have heard so much recently about the Government's intention not to interfere in any way with international trade generally, but in spite of this much has been said about the possibility of specific import restrictions for certain goods.

  593
  Would a specific import control on shoes, for example, conflict with Section 2? Surely it could be said that we would be acting against the spirit of Section 2 which asks us "to avoid unilateral measures" of that kind. Where in this agreement is the line to be drawn between specific measures of the kind which have been commented upon in the Press and the general import restrictions which are clearly outside the scope of this agreement?
  I will not follow my right hon. and learned Friend into the intricacies of the snake—a subject which interests me greatly. My right hon. and learned Friend and I might not wholly see eye to eye on this subject. Therefore, I will leave the matter there.
  What exactly is the situation about the security which our oil revenues are providing for borrowings on international markets? After all, if we were to seek the maximum available tranche under this agreement, which I understand would be double what we have put in, we could obtain some £1,800 million. To what extent are we entitled any more to suggest that our future potential oil revenues are providing this country with the kind of security which has certainly been suggested recently by the Prime Minister in his speeches?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), in the debate on offshore oil on Monday, referred to a figure of £1,860 million as the potential Exchequer revenues from North Sea oil in 1980. This is relevant because if we were to go for international borrowing or for any borrowing under this agreement, the future oil revenues of this country will be looked at very closely. Is it the case that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer last made an announcement, we are now thinking of Exchequer oil revenues of something less than £2 billion in 1980? If so it is a very significant change. If we are running a deficit, on a Government borrowing requirement this year of £12 billion the interest in one year alone would be £1½ billion. A single year's interest on the present size of the Government borrowing requirement would not be far short of the whole of the net oil revenues in 1980. It would be appro-
  594
  priate for the Minister to comment on this briefly.
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, I would like clarification on import controls. What would be the definition of an import control under Article 1?
  Secondly, has the Treasury revised its figures on the net anticipated revenues from the North Sea in 1980 because that is likely to be relevant to borrowings under this agreement in future years?
  12.23 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I was glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) welcomed the Bill, because it is in the interests of the country. Setting up the fund is in the interests not only of this country but of all Western industrialised countries.
  The Bill follows an agreement which was an attempt at least to withstand the attack, if that is the right word, on our industrialised societies, by the rapid increase in the price of oil. It is an attempt to get together to try to mitigate the effect of the quadrupling in the price of oil. One should look at the Bill in that light. He reminded us that a fellow countryman of mine warned against jumping canyons. I am not going to jump canyons, especially if they have at the bottom creatures such as snakes, rapprochement and Rambouillet. Nevertheless, they are to be welcomed because they are part of the same process in this agreement; that is, co-operation between countries of similar industrial structures and policies.
  Mr. Rippon: I sought an assurance that we stand without reservation for the undertakings which we expressed in paragraph 8 of the Rambouillet Declaration.
  Mr. Davies: As a country we invariably stand by our international obligations—perhaps more than some other countries which are members of international organisations. We are very good at it.
  I turn to the specific question of import controls and restrictions upon trade. As we have said time and again, we are not in favour of generalised import controls which would affect world trade. That remains our position. On the other hand, we have said that if specific industries are threatened in this very difficult period,

  595
  we shall consider whether it is necessary to protect them temporarily in this way.
  I remind the House that one can restrict international trade otherwise than by import controls. One can do it by a policy of depreciation of the currency. One can do it by a policy of deflation in order to improve the balance of payments. In many ways, these policies can be as restrictive of international trade as import controls. One should make this point when there is talk of beggar-my-neighbour policies. There were many instances of policy in the 1930s which had these effects. They included import controls and deflation.
  Mr. Rippon: I was pointing out specifically that paragraph 8 of the Rambouillet Declaration is devoted entirely to open trading and a reiteration of the British Government's pledges. I asked for an assurance that there had been no secret discussions of any kind with our partners.
  Mr. Davies: I can give that assurance. We signed the Declaration and stand by it.
  Any borrowing from the fund would be subject to an agreement between the governing committee of the fund and the borrowing country. Any conditions would be negotiated at the time and there would be a kind of contract. We subscribe to the principles of the OECD. Hence this Bill.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) referred to the speech by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) in the oil debate on Monday. To some extent, the right hon. Gentleman made two different kinds of comparison—the National Debt on internal borrowing, and borrowing in relation to the balance of payments. I was asked about the Exchequer revenues we expect in 1980. We expect that in the early 1980s Exchequer revenues from the North Sea will be £2 billion to £3 billion per annum, so the right hon. Gentleman's figure of £1·8 billion for 1980 may be a slightly conservative estimate. We expect the figure to be somewhat higher than £2 billion.
  The right hon. Gentleman threw out a figure in relation to debt interest. He said that the interest on the National Debt, on his figures, would at that time be an additional charge of £3·6 billion on
  596
  the Exchequer. He contrasted that figure with the estimate he had made for Exchequer oil revenues of £1·8 billion. I do not now want to enter into the question of his assumptions, but the debt interest paid by the Government is not a 100 per cent. charge on public funds. Debt interest enters into the taxation computation. If one assumes a 50 per cent. taxation rate, the debt interest of the British Government is effectively reduced by 50 per cent.
  It is too simplistic merely to take the figure of oil revenues and compare it with the gross rate of interest. Debt interest is not a 100 per cent. charge. One cannot enter into too simple an analysis and hope to come up with a concrete figure. As I have said, we expect the oil revenues to be in excess of £2 billion per annum, and I do not accept that one could compare that figure with debt interest charges which are not a charge on public funds.
  Mr. Nott: Just to correct the record, I did not do that. I was referring to a £12 billion borrowing requirement this year, which is entirely a public sector requirement, and I based the figure of £1½ billion on that. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is referring to other figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).
  Mr. Davies: I apologise if I attributed the figures to the wrong hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for St. Ives was asking his question in relation to his right hon. and learned Friend's speech and my point still relates to what he said. Again, debt interest is not a 100 per cent. charge on public sector borrowing when it is paid to people resident in this country. That simplistic comparison cannot be made.
  I think that all hon. Members accept that this is a small but important measure of co-operation between the countries of the OECD to try to alleviate some of the difficulties caused by the increase in the price of oil. For that reason, I hope that the House will approve the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  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.

  MONEYLENDERS (CROWN AGENTS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 1

  MONEYLENDERS ACTS NOT TO APPLY TO CROWN AGENTS, ETC.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after 'applied', insert
  'except in cases where litigation was commenced and a defence under the Moneylenders Acts 1900 to 1927 or the Moneylenders Acts (Northern Ireland) 1900 to 1969 pleaded before 20th November 1975'.
  However much the Minister may have tried to disguise this unattractive fact on Second Reading, this is a Bill designed to have retrospective effect—that is to say, it is designed retrospectively to affect transactions entered into between a variety of people and the Crown Agents. This is a factor which will not commend the Bill to the Committee. The Minister was disposed to say that it was a "clarificatory or declaratory" Bill, but that is only a smokescreen to conceal this unpalatable fact.
  The Minister assured the House that no persons had actually started litigation against the Crown Agents, so to that extent the Bill was unobjectionable. The amendment is designed to meet that point, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will therefore feel able to accept it.
  The sole point of the amendment is to exclude from the retrospective operation of the Bill any actions which were started in which a defence under the Moneylenders Acts had been pleaded before 20th November 1975, when the Bill was laid before the House. If it be the fact—I will accept any assurance that the
  598
  hon. Gentleman may give—that no litigation has been started, no defence pleaded, I am sure that the Government will feel easily able to accept the amendment. Therefore, on that short and simple basis, I hope that my amendment will commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary and, more importantly, to the Committee.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. John Grant): I made it clear on Second Reading on 27th November that although certain inquiries had been made by the liquidator of a company and by other companies, no legal proceedings had been started in respect of any loans made by the Crown Agents. I should add also that the Crown Agents have not commenced litigation against any company or person to procure the repayment of a loan or the payment of interest. I can, again, confirm what I said to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) on 27th November.
  Despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, with commendable brevity, his proposed amendment is quite unnecessary. It adds nothing essential to the subsection. Indeed, it rather tends to suggest a state of affairs that does not exist. The amendment is rather cumbersome and repetitious.
  I appreciate the concern of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill should not pre-empt or be seen to pre-empt any litigation or defence which might have been started or pleaded before the Bill was published. However, that point does not arise. I fail to understand the purpose of his amendment and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw it.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply because retrospective legislation is always abhorrent. I confess that I was uncertain how to phrase the manner in which the retrospective element in this legislation could be removed. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) on the elegant way in which he has done it.
  The Government are becoming punch-drunk on retrospective legislation. They fail to realise how important it is that, where humanly possible, we should avoid

  599
  this type of legislation. It is disappointing that the Minister has not felt it possible to accept the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend has tabled his amendment. I shall certainly support the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Rees: If the Minister will give the Committee the categoric assurance that, should he have been wrongly briefed by his advisers and should it turn out that litigation has been started and that such a defence is being pleaded, he will make an exception in favour of those litigants and those who have brought an action against the Crown Agents, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. Will the hon. Gentleman give that assurance?
  Mr. John Grant: I do not think I can go so far as to give that assurance. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that there is some litigation of which he perhaps knows something. I am beginning to wonder why he is so anxious about this matter. Perhaps he can help us on this.
  As I said on 27th November, we have no knowledge of any litigation and no reason to suppose that any litigation has been started. I cannot give him the kind of undertaking that he wants. If I find that I am wrong, we can look at the matter again. There will still be time in another place to do that. However, I cannot give him that undertaking now.
  Mr. Peter Rees: What exactly does the Minister mean when he says that he will look at the matter again? Should it turn out that he has been wrongly instructed by his Department and that an action has been started—perhaps I should state that I am concerned neither personally nor professionally—what does he mean when he says that he will look at the matter again? Will he clarify the situation?
  Mr. Grant: I was trying to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am trying to meet his point with an open mind, but I cannot go any further on this point now.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I may be able to help the Minister and my hon. and learned Friend if I refer to a question which I put to the Minister for Overseas Develop-
  600
  ment on Second Reading. I put this precise question to him:
  "Does the Bill cut across any legal proceedings that have already commenced … or of which notice has been given …?"
  Hansard records:
  "Mr. Prentice: It does not."—[Official Report, 27th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1147.]
  I think that we must accept that assurance, although I should like to underline the fact that my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the problems that retrospective legislation could cause if legal proceedings were to have been undertaken.
  I think that it would be sufficient for us if the Minister were to say that he will make quite certain that the assurances that he and his right hon. Friend have given are accurate, and that if they were not to be accurate he would put the matter right in another place.
  Mr. Grant: Put in those terms, I can give that assurance.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The assurance was wrung out of the Parliamentary Secretary like blood out of a stone. It was not a very satisfactory assurance. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he cannot treat the Committee in this rather cavalier fashion. This may seem to the hon. Gentleman and those sitting behind him to be a small point, but to my hon. Friends it is a matter of some importance. If the hon. Gentleman treats the Committee in this fashion he will find that his legislation will take a great deal longer to get through this House.
  I do not want to sound churlish on this point. I am prepared to accept the assurance. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall be very brief because I know that that is the wish of the House as there are other important matters to follow.
  Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. In accepting the proposal that it should stand part of the Bill, I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, will he say how the Crown Agents are getting on? His right hon. Friend, in his statement, gave the impression that things

  601
  were going along rather well. It would be for the benefit of the House if the Minister could give us his judgment of how things now stand.
  Secondly, will the Minister tell us, in terms, that in planning the future legislation which has been promised he will be very careful to protect the continued freedom of action of the Crown Agents vis-à-vis their overseas customers? The overseas customers place great store by that and so do the Crown Agents. We should like to support them and I should like to have that assurance from the Minister.
  Thirdly, can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of when the White Paper which his right hon. Friend has promised to publish—I think he said "shortly"—will be available?
  The Opposition find the Bill painful and disagreeable. We wish that we did not have to have it, but we understand why the Government have felt it necessary to bring it forward and we appreciate that very large sums of public money could be at risk. Without any enthusiasm at all, therefore, we reluctantly agree that the clause should stand part of a disagreeable Bill.
  Mr. John Lee: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) regards the Bill as being somewhat disagreeable. I share that regard in the sense that I think that it is unsatisfactory that this matter should be dealt with as a piecemeal exercise.
  In regard to this whole business, I get the impression that the Crown Agents are getting rather more generous treatment from this House than they might reasonably have expected. Having regard to all that has happened and to the fact that the committee of inquiry has yet to report on its deliberations, I should have thought it more satisfactory in many respects if the Bill had been deferred until the inquiries had been made and we knew whether proceedings were to be taken against those who we believe have been perhaps more than negligent in the conduct of their duties. It would have been more to the point if we had been able to have sight of a White Paper on the structure of the Crown Agents as they are likely to be when they have been reconstituted.
  602
  One of the difficulties with this situation is that the Government have had very little power over the Crown Agents. We all know that. But until we know the form in which the Crown Agents are to be restructured and incorporated we cannot really be satisfied that the kind of situation caused by Mr. Challis will not occur again. I was somewhat surprised when my hon. Friend told us that there are no proceedings in prospect against the Crown Agents in respect of which a defence might be pleaded. That is the point that has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees).
  I want to know why the Crown Agents are not taking steps to recover the moneys owed to them. Has my hon. Friend been told whether proceedings are in contemplation? The miserable story of the secondary banks, which was extensively discussed on Second Reading, leaves one in no doubt that several banks behaved not only disreputably but in a way which would make it not impossible to prove negligence in the way in which they handled their funds.
  10.45 p.m.
  I am interested to know whether the Crown Agents will move in quickly. Some of the banks that were mentioned on Second Reading—for example, London Counties and Cedar Holdings—are in a ropey condition. It may be that if litigation is deferred for some time we shall find the Crown Agents faced with several examples of insolvency. The sooner they take steps to recover the money, the sooner they will ward off any risk of possible action being taken against themselves.
  I think we are all relieved that there has not been a furore from the numerous independent Governments who use the services of this peculiar and anomalous organisation. I am surprised that there has not been an attempt to withdraw funds. It may be that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and the present Minister to cope with the situation have done something to restore confidence, but unless measures are taken pretty soon on the part of the Crown Agents to recover the funds it is reasonable to suppose that that confidence will again be on the wane.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: We have now had two speeches saying that the Bill is unsatisfactory. There are many hon. Members who wish to have an opportunity in the short time that is left to pray against the Road Traffic Order. Would it not be simpler for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will take no further step with the Bill at this stage? There is no support from behind him and there is no support from the Opposition. Unless he is prepared to say that, we shall have no alternative but to vote on the first possible issue. That opportunity must come up shortly, and I doubt whether the Government would have 100 Members present. That would enable us to get on to the next business in the short time that is available, giving us an opportunity to pray against the iniquitous speed limits now in force.
  Mr. John Grant: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will have anything to add. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) wishes to pursue that course, we shall have to meet it when it comes. I hope that the British taxpayer will take careful note of what he says. It is the British taxpayer whose interests we are trying to protect by introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Lee: What is being asked for may not be unreasonable in all the circumstances—namely, that the matter be deferred so that we can avoid a late night sitting. There is £400 million at stake. I agree that it is necessary that this measure should go through quickly. I take issue with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) that there is no support for the Bill. I think it is important that a measure of this kind should not be dealt with in a spatchcocked or hurried way.
  Mr. Grant: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present on Second Reading. Most of these points were raised then and were answered. If my hon. Friend had read Hansard, he would have known that to be the case.
  Mr. Viggers: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) is aware that on Second Reading—I do not know whether he was present—a number of hon. Mem-
  604
  bers said that they would seek to raise a number of issues in Committee when the Committee stage was reached. One of my colleagues said he hoped that the Leader of the House would give reasonable time for this issue to be discussed at a reasonable hour of the day. The Government Chief Whip said that if the definition of "reasonable" was that it would come on immediately after 10 o'clock, that would have been more acceptable.
  Two items are tabled for their remaining stages tonight. They are issues of great importance. The Order on speed limits comes after this Committee stage and must be completed by 11.30 p.m. The Minister should not say that all these matters were dealt with on Second Reading, because there are a number of points that need to be made in Committee. I do not think one can make those points constructively within the present time limit.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and my Conservative colleagues in saying how outrageous it is that the House should be asked to debate this important measure, involving a sum of £400 million of taxpayers' money, in less than half an hour so that we should enable many of my hon. Friends to raise an equally important matter concerning speed limits. This is an abuse of the procedures of the House—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must call the hon. and learned Gentleman to order in that he must relate his remarks to the clause we are discussing.
  Mr. Rees: Had you permitted me to continue, Mr. Murton, I was about to explain why I was being compelled to truncate my argument—namely, because I wish to leave to my hon. Friends the opportunity to raise important points on speed limits. However, in the limited time available to me, let me try to make a few short points.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is asking the House to consider in Committee an important Bill involving £400 million of taxpayers' money. He has not explained—nor were we given an explanation on Second Reading—many important constitutional points. For example, I should

  605
  like to know the status of the Crown Agents. Are they a partnership body or are they an emanation of the Crown? We cannot be asked to give them a blanket immunity without knowing their status.
  I took the opportunity to turn up "Halsbury", Fourth Edition, Volume 6, on this point, and I read the following definition:
  "They act as commercial and financial agents in the United Kingdom for all dependent territories and, by special arrangements, for certain other governments overseas, both within and outside the Commonwealth. They act on direct instructions from their principals, though subject to the general supervision of the Secretary of State and, as regards requitions from independent governments, to the rules laid down in Colonial Regulations".
  Does that definition relate to transactions in respect of which we are now asked to give immunity to the Crown Agents acting under direct supervision of the Secretary of State?
  More important, were the Crown Agents acting as agents for foreign Governments? I imagine that they were acting as agents of foreign Governments because Clause 1(2) of the Bill says:
  "In this section 'Crown Agents' means the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations, that is to say the persons from time to time appointed (whether by that or by any other name) to act as agents or trustees for oversea governments and administrations by a Minister of the Crown."
  There is no reference to the fact that they might be acting as agents for a dependent territory. We know that our once-glorious empire has gone and that the "dependent territories" are scattered across the globe.
  If it turns out that the Crown Agents were acting as agents for overseas Governments and administrations, I have always understood it to be a great constitutional principle that this House does not on the whole legislate in favour of or to protect foreign administrations. What kind of transactions are we considering? What if it turns out that the money loaned by the Crown Agents is to be loaned by them as agents for the Shahanshah of Iran? If that were so, why should we be protecting him? This would be a matter for him, his advisers and the Crown Agents. It might be a matter of great delicacy and embarrassment to all concerned, but is this Parliament to be asked to protect the
  606
  Shahanshah? Of course, it might not be him, in which case I apologise. It might be some other foreign sovereign, but should we be protecting people of this kind?
  Ministers have told us nothing about these transactions. If the Crown Agents were acting as agents and not as principals, why should we be asked to protect them and their foreign principals?
  These are all points of profound constitutional importance involving huge sums of money. It is wrong that we should have to compress the debate in order to allow our hon. Friends to raise a matter of equal importance in a mere 30 or 35 minutes.
  Mr. John Grant: It appears that I have quite a lot of time at my disposal, despite the speeches made by Opposition Members, though no doubt some of them may wish to come back later.
  We discussed the purpose of the Bill in great detail on Second Reading. I do not want to go over all that detail again and I do not think hon. Members would wish that. We are introducing this legislation to save the taxpayer from the risk of having to pay up to £400 million as a result of a fine point of doubt in the interpretation of the Moneylenders Acts. That is a complete justification.
  This is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) suggested, a piecemeal exercise. It is complete in itself, though there are other matters to follow, including the White Paper and the committee of inquiry.
  Mr. Lee: I was pointing out that it is unsatisfactory to deal with this rescue operation separately and in advance of an unspecified reconstruction of the Crown Agents which the Minister presumably hopes will avoid a fiasco of a similar kind happening again.
  Mr. Grant: We dealt with this point very fully on Second Reading. We accept that this is an emergency operation. It is necessary not only to save taxpayers' money but because confidence in the Crown Agents is involved. I thought we had reached agreement across the Floor of the House on this point.
  When the loans in question were made, the Crown Agents, as lenders, believed that they were made in good faith and

  607
  that they would be repaid in good faith. I believe that the borrowers had the same intention. We are establishing the position in law as everybody thought it was at that time.
  Some hon. Members have made rather more of this than they need have done. It was suggested that the courts should be left to interpret the law. Courts interpret legislation handed down by Parliament. Sometimes we do not define it with very great clarity, but when Parliament becomes aware of a lack of such clarity it is right that we should clear up the point. After all, we are the legislature. It might be different if there were litigation before the courts. That point has been dealt with and we should be careful about prejudicing any matter which is sub judice.
  11.0 p.m.
  We are dealing only with the possibility that in the future someone might take this matter before the courts. My right hon. Friend was asked who would benefit if the Bill was not enacted. The answer is that, if what we and the Crown Agents believe to be the law is upheld in any action before the courts, no one would benefit because the loans would be repayable by those who had received them from the Crown Agents, and the Crown Agents' claim on liquidators of certain companies would hold good. If the courts took the contrary view the benefit would go to the property companies, secondary banks and other companies to which the loans were made or to the other creditors of companies in liquidation.
  The real worry is not so much that this might happen but that there might be several years of delay while the matter was decided in the courts. During that time the position of the Crown Agents would be worsening because they would be unable to recover either the principal or the interest, which is a necessary part of their income. We are concerned to avoid that uncertainty over the status of the Crown Agents.
  I was asked whether the Crown Agents were acting under the direction or supervision of the Secretary of State or his agents for overseas Governments. In a sense, the hon. Member who raised this last point answered his own question.
  608
  They were acting as agents for overseas Governments. The Bill seeks to protect the interests of the British taxpayer, and there is, of course, involved here the question of overseas confidence.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked how things now stood. I cannot add much to what has been said tonight. Under the new board a great deal has been done to restore the position. The financial position is admittedly not very good—I would stress that it arises solely from past activities—and one might say that the chickens are still coming home to roost. Nevertheless the present activities are viable and are not leading the Crown Agents into further financial difficulties.
  The hon. Member asked about freedom of action of overseas customers in future. I shall convey that point strongly to my right hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will take note of it. The hon. Member also asked about the date of the White Paper. I believe that my right hon. Friend's phrase was "very shortly", and the hon. Member can assume that to mean quite early in the new year.
  I have outlined the reasons for the Bill and for the urgency that we attach to it. I do not think it is necessary to delay this legislation while we wait either for the White Paper on the future of the Crown Agents or for the report of the Fay Committee. We are considering the limited question about the ability of the Crown Agents to recover their loans. What we do about their future is another and much wider question. We want to get these matters right before we publish the White Paper, and we do not want to rush that. It will not be much longer in coming.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The Minister said that in the transactions in question the Crown Agents were acting as agents for foreign sovereigns. If that is so, surely it must follow as a point of law that the people at risk are the foreign sovereigns and not the British taxpayer. I fail to understand the Minister's argument.
  Mr. Grant: It is fairly clear that there is considerable risk to the taxpayer. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have disregarded entirely the whole question of overseas confidence.
  Mr. Viggers: May I remind the Minister that the former Minister for Overseas Development said on 18th December 1974 that she and her Government would stand behind the overseas principals, and that it is that which has caused the Government to take this action? It has caused them to stand behind the agency agreement which has been referred to.
  Mr. Grant: My right hon. Friend has repeated that assurance. We continue to stand behind the Crown Agents. This has not been a matter at issue between the two sides of the House. The Opposition Front Bench has endorsed our view on that, and both the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) have repeated their assurances that they support us on that score.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The Parliamentary Secretary's answer is profoundly unsatisfactory. Inadvertently perhaps, he has done the House a gross discourtesy. He has not answered the points which have been put to him. I appreciate that he has probably been imperfectly briefed. I am not certain for how long he has held his present high office, but he has not understood the questions we have asked. These are, I know, points of great legal nicety,
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  and I speak as a lawyer and, therefore, with a fractional advantage over the hon. Gentleman in this matter, but this is precisely why Law Officers exist, to advise the House on such matters.
  The hon. Gentleman has spoken about questions of confidence. He has been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He does not understand the relationship between an agent and a principal, and I do not blame him for that because this is a matter of law, but I suggest that the Government would be better advised to withdraw the Bill and seek the advice of one of the Law Officers.
  This is a matter of great difficulty. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for not understanding it, but it is wrong of him to come to the House and attempt to dazzle us with science which he himself does not understand. The proper course is for the Bill to be withdrawn, leaving such time as remains for my hon. Friends to raise the important question of speed limits.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 73, Noes 9.

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES

  [11.3 p.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hon. E.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Selby, Harry

  Bain, Mrs. Margaret

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Sillars, James

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Small, William

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Henderson, Douglas

  Snape, Peter

  Boardman, H.

  Hunter, Adam

  Spearing, Nigel

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Stott, Roger

  Buchan, Norman

  John, Brynmor

  Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W.)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Lambie, David

  Tinn, James

  Carmichael, Neil

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Torney, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Cohen, Stanley

  McCartney, Hugh

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  McElhone, Frank

  Ward, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Madden, Max

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mahon, Simon

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Deakins, Eric

  Marks, Kenneth

  Woof, Robert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dempsey, James

  Murray, Rt. Hon. Ronald King

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Noble, Mike

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Eadie, Alex

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Park, George

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  NOES

  Beith, A. J.

  Penhaligon, David

  Freud, Clement

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mr. Jerry Wiggin and

  McCusker, H.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Robert Boscawen

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  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.

  SPEED LIMITS
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Fox: I should be failing in my duty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I did not register the strongest protest about the way in which the Government have filled the Order Paper—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The Chair desires to know whether the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) is moving his motion.
  Mr. Fox: I am merely drawing attention to the fact that it is not possible for me to move my motion in the way that I would have liked had I been allowed sufficient time.
  Accordingly, I move immediately to this important matter. I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1895), dated 21st November 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be annulled.
  We cannot allow this Statutory Instrument to go through without some comment. There are too many measures of this kind going through and circumventing the system.
  A number of the claims which have been made by the Government must be challenged by the Opposition. It is important to look back at the reasons for the Order being made originally. On 9th December, in response to the Secretary of State for Energy, the then Minister introduced legislation as a contribution to fuel-saving. That was the whole purpose of the exercise. In the course of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I should also remind the House that efficient driving and proper vehicle maintenance can save petrol as effectively as lower speeds."
  612
  —[Official Report, 9th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 39.]
  The Automobile Association went further than the Minister, who said in his Press handout dated 12th November of this year:
  "Consumption of motor spirit in the first half of 1975, compared with the equivalent period of 1973, was between 3 and 4 per cent. less than could be accounted for by reductions in traffic—a saving of about £40 million a year to our balance of payments. The factors leading to this will have included slower speeds, more careful driving behaviour and a tendency to use smaller vehicles."
  The House will notice that the Minister did not isolate the savings from the reductions in speed. He lumped them together with the savings from careful driving and a tendency to use smaller vehicles. The total saving from all these measures is 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. Given that there has been a move in favour of smaller cars, there is not much that can be attributed to the speed restrictions.
  However, the Automobile Associaation goes even further and claims that, if the Minister is really interested in saving fuel, he ought to look at the proper servicing of vehicles, because in that connection the potential saving is not 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. but 20 per cent. Surely that is an area where more money could be spent more profitably on an advertising campaign than on perpetuating these restrictions.
  Above all, I question the basis on which the Minister claims that the 50 and 60 mph limits have been well respected. I should like to know which civil servant has told him that. I believe that a sizeable number of people do not even know that these restrictions are still in force. Although many people were aware of them when they were initially introduced, they now think that they have lapsed Moreover, the police generally are not enforcing these restrictions. I do not blame them for not doing so, because I know that they have better things to do.
  Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that, when laws are imposed with penalties for failure to observe them, there must be a presumption that they are effective, and that the utmost care has been devoted to the terms in which they are formulated. I submit, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends agree that this is not the case.

  613
  I should like to refer to the Commercial Travellers' Association, which I am sure has put forward a valid point. That association is deeply concerned that some of its members could lose their licences' which means their jobs and livelihoods, under the totting-up procedure. Previously that procedure applied only to offences where there was an element of unsafe driving behaviour. Now, however, with these restrictions continuing, such penalties could be incurred for reasons of fuel consumption. I trust that the Minister will pay attention to that matter.
  Since this measure was introduced certain ambiguities have arisen. Some people took the view that fuel-saving was becoming secondary to accident prevention. That was not the original purpose of this measure. If the position has changed, it should be debated properly in Parliament and not dealt with in this way.
  It is questionable whether the claimed reduction in accidents is valid. Let us not forget that there has been a considerable reduction in traffic, mainly due to the increased costs of motoring. The reduction in the use of motor vehicles is the major cause of the reduction in accidents.
  It is interesting to note that the reduction in accidents on motorways is 15 per cent., and on all-purpose roads subjected to these limits it is 16 per cent. Therefore, there is an improvement of only I per cent. more on the roads where the limits apply. I do not find that a convincing argument.
  In the original debate the Minister for Transport said:
  "if speed limits do not command general support from road users, their enforcement puts serious extra strain on police resources."—[Official Report, 9th December, 1974; Vol. 883, c. 48.]
  On those grounds alone, the Order should be dropped.
  I know that a number of my hon. Friends wished to speak on this matter, and I regret that it is not possible for them to do so. However, I should like to read a letter which I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), who writes:
  "Norfolk County Council and the Norfolk County Police are anxious that the present
  614
  speed limit should not apply for a further year. They oppose the Government's intentions to extend this Order not least because they feel that in areas such as Norfolk where there are few dual carriageways, the 50 m.p.h. speed limit is contributing to unnecessary congestion and bunching of traffic, resulting in additional driver frustration and increasing the risk of accidents.
  Although when the speed limit was introduced there was an initial decline in the number of accidents, the figures for more recent months show increases."
  Although I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his recent appointment and welcome the fact that the Minister for Transport is abroad on European business, it might be fitting to mention that we are not being very good Europeans in this matter. Europeans accept the need for flexibility depending on differing circumstances, such as road design features and traffic densities, and recommend the harmonisation of speed limits on roads other than motorways of approximately 62 m.p.h.
  In all this, one thing stands out. The motorist as such holds no brief for these restrictions. He finds them confusing, unrealistic and unjustifiable and as something else with which to cope.
  There is no need for the Order to be brought forward again. It is a pity that the Government have missed an opportunity to allow this legislation to lapse. Unfortunately, like all Socialist Governments, they enjoy—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman has not heard it yet—regulations and controls. Should this country unfortunately still suffer a Labour Government a year from now, we shall certainly not take the view that we take tonight on this matter. We shall oppose far more strongly the continuation of such an Order if it is brought forward in another year.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since it is clear that it will not be possible for hon. Members from the Back Benches to contribute and for the Minister to reply, may I ask whether it will be possible to secure an indication that the debate will be adjourned or stood over and not proceeded with tonight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be apprised by the Chair at the appropriate moment.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that, under the strict timing governing this Prayer, the time available to hon. Members to raise important issues has been eaten into by the incompetent replies of the Ministers dealing with the two previous Bills. I am certain that it is within your power to protect the rights of hon. Members who wish to pray against this iniquitous legislation. I hope that you will be able to give us some indication—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)rose—
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to understand that the Minister is standing up to reply to a debate which has been virtually non-existent, or are other speakers to be heard after the Minister has spoken?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should await the decision of the Chair.
  11.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): First, I should like to convey the apologies of the Minister for Transport. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said, my hon. Friend is at present attending the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were not being very good Europeans. It is significant that four of the Nine adopt the 50 mph limit on all single carriageway roads, that France and Denmark retain it at 56 mph and that only Italy and Germany go to 60 mph.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's considerable extracts from AA circulars.
  Mr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marks: No. The history of road speed limits is sufficiently well known for me not to have to recite it again. Suffice to say that the introduction of the present 50 mph and 60 mph limits was announced a year ago yesterday as
  616
  one of 12 items in an energy-saving package.
  The House will know, from the Written Answer given by my hon. Friend on 5th November in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), that the limits have been continued by using powers conferred under the Fuel and Electricity Control Act 1973. As the hon. Member for Shipley said, the consumption of motor spirit between 1973 and 1975 was 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. less than could be accounted for by a reduction in—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of opinion that owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 3rd December relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, Mr. John Lee be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Martin Flannery be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

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

  TOURISM
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the opportunity to initiate this short debate on the current problems in the tourist industry. Tourism is a subject to which this House gives insufficient time and attention.
  We should be aware of the contribution that tourism makes to the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 8·6 million overseas visitors will have come to this country in 1975—a 10 per cent. increase on last year. They will spend some £1,400

  617
  million of much-required foreign currency. That figure represents 4 per cent. of the total exports of the United Kingdom, or, put another way, approximately 11 per cent. of our invisible earnings.
  Apart from that contribution to the nation's income, the pattern of expenditure by the tourist gives direct benefit to many sections of the community, particularly the service sector. If we analyse the £1,400 million we see that accommodation in hotels accounted for some £320 million in the current year, and dining in hotels and restaurants accounted for £150 million. Some £420 million was spent in shops; £100 million on internal transport and £110 million on other internal expenditure such as entertainment and theatres. Fares paid to United Kingdom airlines and shipping lines amounted to £300 million.
  Of that expenditure, it is estimated that £100 million was paid direct to the Treasury in taxation by way of VAT and excise duties on petrol, tobacco, and drink. It is estimated that 1 million people owe their jobs, at least in part, to the industry. In emphasising this variety of economic activity that both contributes to and depends upon the industry, I am led to ask the Minister two questions.
  Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the nation as a whole and the Government in particular are fully appreciative yet of the value of the tourist industry? I do not ask that in a flippant or cynical manner, knowing the Minister personally as I do.
  The NEDC talks on 5th November showed a complete indifference to the service sector of our economy. In the subsequent White Paper the Government are committed to encouraging investment on a selective basis. Tourism is a natural candidate for investment, yet there is no mention of it.
  Does the Minister believe that the Government and the industry have yet evolved the correct structures and appropriate relationships to take maximum advantage of undoubted opportunities and potential? The British Tourist Authority is primarily responsible for overseas promotion.
  We have the three national tourist boards, and the English Board has a
  618
  regional structure. I accept that they are undertaking valuable work, but in attempting to assess their effectiveness I am concerned by two aspects. It would appear that much of the board's time is spent in close liaison with other Government agencies and what one might describe as the quasi-State organisations concerned with leisure and recreation—the Countryside Commission, the Sports Council, the National Trust, the tourist section of the Forestry Commission and others. No doubt this is necessary and there are some useful achievements. But I wonder whether this consultation and analysis is not at the expense of contact with the various facets of the private sector which actually operate the tourist industry.
  I acknowledge that we live and work in an interventionist society. I accept that it was right for the Secretary of State for Trade to issue his guidelines last year. The basic theme of his statement was that we must fully develop our tourist resources, giving greater emphasis to the regions which hitherto had not been developed, and seek ways in which more projects and areas of tourist activity could be self-financing.
  Surely, to achieve that latter objective it is essential that the private sector should be involved right from the earliest stages. The private sector must be consulted on a continuing basis if the necessary confidence is to be gained. I believe that there should be direct access by the private sector to the Secretary of State and not only via the statutory boards.
  In raising certain specific problems I appreciate that they are not the direct responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State, but I hope that he will say what he can and will convey the points made to the various Departments concerned.
  The first specific point concerns the Fire Precautions Act. This is a classic case of a well-intentioned Act, which had all-party support. When we came to implementation, certain problems came to light, primarily financial, of which the House was not aware at the time it passed the Act. The Hotels and Catering Economic Development Council estimates the cost of implementing the Act, including work already done, at about £95 million. This is a considerable sum of money and puts severe strains on the hotel industry—particularly the smaller

  619
  units—which, in the current economic climate, is already strained to capacity anyway.
  As a consequence, in a minority of situations the expenditure has been prohibitive. There are more hotels on the market today than is normal. A number of hotels are reducing the number of their letting rooms. Others are converting into self-contained flats. Then there is ultimate closure. In Suffolk there have been 70 such closures. In Essex 50 hotels have either closed or reduced their capacity. In Sussex 100 have reduced their capacity. In Cornwall some 50 have either closed or reduced their capacity.
  I regret to say that the situation does not end there. On 21st May this year I learned in answer to a Question to the Home Office that about 39,000 hotels and boarding houses in England and Wales—70 per cent. of the total—had still to be inspected by the local fire officer. Therefore, if the bedrooms are to be available to meet the growing demand, the Minister must use his influence, as the Minister responsible for tourism, with both the Treasury and the Home Office. I hope to see some movement towards either extending the implementation period or giving long-term Government loans at moderate interest rates.
  The second specific question concerns the need to classify hotels as industrial buildings, thus allowing the building of new ones to be eligible for industrial building allowances. Tourism is an international market. The competition with other countries is becoming fiercer than ever. But whereas the hotel industries of all our European rivals receive Government assistance, ours is both highly taxed and in receipt of no special concessions. I should think that our current economic climate, plus the more intensive international competition, means that the extension of capital allowances for hotel building is more necessary than ever. Indeed, in March of this year, in answer to a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was told that he estimated that this would cost the Treasury, subject to a wide margin of error, about £25 million a year.
  Going back to the Government's White Paper, if we are to have selective investment, surely hotels are an excellent case. Tax allowances on hotel buildings are al-
  620
  lowed in all other EEC countries. Therefore, investment in hotels here depends much more on restricted cash flow and on high interest loans than it does in our European competitors, with inevitable adverse effect on prices in a highly price-sensitive market. Of course, industrial building allowances can be used only to offset taxation on profits, so that their extension to hotels would surely only encourage potentially profitable, and not indiscriminate, investment.
  I appreciate that my third point, the problem of rates, affects all sections of the community, but particularly the business community. We have the Layfield Committee, but as an interim measure consideration should be given to granting rate relief to business units of up to a rateable value of, say, £800 a year, which average would include hotels with up to 17 or 18 bedrooms.
  Fourth, there is the whole question of the criteria used in determining the locations to qualify for assistance under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act. Funds at the moment are available only to approved projects in development areas. This means that in the current financial year £1·56 million is available for the English development areas, £800,000 is available for Scotland and £682,000 is available for Wales.
  The present position is far from satisfactory in that the designation of development areas is based on industrial criteria. These areas are not necessarily those which require tourist aid. The Minister should give proper consideration to investigating the possibility of creating tourist development areas independent of normal industrial development areas.
  Finally, I ask the Minister to take advantage of this opportunity to comment on the availability of EEC funds. As he well knows, there is a misunderstanding at present as to precisely what sources of finance are available to the tourist industry, and in particular the hotel sector, for expansion programmes and improvement schemes. We now have the Regional Development Fund and the Global Loan Scheme, which is administered in the United Kingdom by Finance for Industry but which is, of course, financed by the European Investment Bank. Therefore, the industry would welcome guidance from the Minister on this matter this evening.

  621
  I hope the Minister realises that the tourist industry faces real difficulties, which have been aggravated by the high rate of inflation. However, I cannot over-emphasise that the tourist industry is anxious to respond to the Secretary of State's objectives. To attain those objectives we have to create the necessary climate of confidence. I hope that, in turn, the Minister will demonstrate by his actions and, indeed, by his attitudes that he is conscious of the industry's problems.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) on raising this topic tonight in an Adjournment debate. We have not had a debate on tourism for over a year. Indeed, it was his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who last raised this subject, in the middle of 1974, when we also had an interesting debate on it. The hon. Member for Bodmin equalled the performance of his hon. Friend the Member for Acton, who is a great expert on tourism, in the lucid way in which he set out the present state of the industry and the problems facing it.
  I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's general support for the objectives of the new tourism guidelines, which are beginning to be appreciated throughout the tourist industry as being appropriate to the situation in which not only the industry but the country finds itself today. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the structure of the industry. It is a very varied industry. It includes hotels and catering and many other types of accommodation, boarding-houses, holiday centres, caravans and self-catering units, which today are increasingly used. Tourists also want to do things and look at things, so the industry must include the leisure industries, historic houses, museums and the arts. Many sectors of the retail industry are also involved.
  Against that background it is difficult to have a tidy, coherent structure which can embrace all those activities and which can include big companies, private family businesses and public bodies. However, I do not believe that tidiness matters all that much. We need free and effective communications between all concerned.
  622
  One important element is the statutory tourist boards. I pay tribute to the efforts they have made and are making to promote tourism and to advise the Government in accordance with their statutory obligations. There is constant consultation between the boards and the Government, and the Government and the boards are also in close touch with the industry in order that it can represent its views to the Department. However, as I have said before—and I repeat it again tonight—I am willing to listen, when appropriate, to representations that are put forward by the industry.
  I turn from the national scene to local matters. We also have the regional tourist boards, which do an excellent job in liaising with local authorities. Indeed the local authorities themselves play an essential part, not only in the support which they give to the regional tourist boards but also in the provision at local level of tourism facilities.
  That is the pattern. Tourism is essentially a partnership between Government, the statutory boards, local authorities and private industry. The present pattern has evolved and I am sure that it will continue to evolve. If changes in private industry or elsewhere should make changes necessary in the structure, I am sure that the boards will be the first to bring this aspect of tourism to the attention of all concerned.
  In his more specific points the hon. Gentleman mentioned, first, fire precautions. I assure him that both I and the Government fully appreciate the problems which fire precautions pose for the hotel industry. It is entirely to the industry's credit that discussion in the trade Press and elsewhere has rightly assumed that higher standards are necessary; and the issues have been the high cost involved with its implications for reduced profitability and, perhaps, closure of hotels, a point which was well emphasised by the hon. Gentleman.
  As regards numbers of hotels, it is appropriate to note that at the beginning of 1974 the total number was 34,000. The estimated number of hotels which have closed in the four years 1970–73 is 1,600, which is about 4 per cent. The source for those figures is an NEDC report. Unfortunately, it is not possible to say in every case why hotels have closed.

  623
  The Government have always taken the view that it would be wrong in principle to provide grants to assist in the provision of statutory requirements affecting safety, but that does not mean that no help is available. There is tax relief for fire precautions work, and local authorities are empowered to make loans available to hotels with accommodation for up to 25 people, including guests and staff. I understand that the not inconsiderable sum of £1·4 million has been included by local authorities in their current estimates for this purpose.
  As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, fire precautions are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I know that he would want me to pass to him any firm evidence that is given to me of hardship caused by the Act. I can certainly give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about investment allowances, both here and in Western Europe. It is true, as he pointed out, that tax allowances on hotel buildings are available in EEC and other countries but not in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a good deal more generous than many other countries in its treatment for tax purposes of hotel plant and equipment. This should be particularly helpful to hoteliers who are contemplating modernisation programmes. On balance, I do not think that it has yet been clearly demonstrated that the overall tax position for hotels is significantly worse in the United Kingdom than it is elsewhere.
  We have had the Hotel Development Incentive Scheme and the substantial Government expenditure which has been associated with it, amounting to some £60 million by the time all the grants will have been paid. This has also provided an effective stimulus to hotel investment and has achieved the objective of averting a threatened shortage of beds.
  There is also the real practical difficulty that any change of the kind which has been urged tonight would lead to claims for similar treatment in other parts of the commercial sector. Hence we cannot look at hotels in isolation. However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this is really a matter for my right
  624
  hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall bring to his attention the various points made by the hon. Gentleman. In addition, I assure the House that the position of the hotel industry, in this as in other matters, is kept under careful review.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about tourism development areas, which is an idea he has put forward previously, certainly in a Committee discussing regional affairs some time ago. The suggestion that we should assist tourism projects under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 in a way which would extend this assistance outside development areas is not new. It has been canvassed a good deal both in the House at Question Time and outside the House. Proposals have been put forward to extend it to intermediate areas, to coastal areas or, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to special tourism development areas.
  I am aware of the problems faced by hard-pressed holiday towns, and I therefore have sympathy with those suggestions. The difficulty is that the amount of money available from public funds for tourism is limited. The present policy—and I am sure that it is right—is to concentrate this assistance where it is most needed. Hence it is available to those parts of the country most in need of assistance—namely, the development areas. Even in those areas it is necessary that priority be given to local authorities which are especially economically weak and have tourism potential which can be developed. If this assistance to tourism projects is made more widely available, it will have to be spread more thinly. If that is done, it could fail to make an adequate impact where it is most needed.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for some clarification of EEC aid facilities There has unfortunately been some misunderstanding about those facilities on the part of the industry. There is no prospect of getting easy money from Brussels. The idea of ample resources waiting to be claimed by hoteliers is an illusion.
  The £150 million that is available to the United Kingdom from the European Regional Development Fund is for investment in industry, service industry and infrastructure over the period 1975–77.

  625
  The share for service industry investment will be quite small. Second, the applications which have to be submitted by the Government have to meet the criteria in the fund regulations. For example, projects must be in receipt of national aid as under Section 4 of the 1969 Act. The minimum qualifying investment is about £21,000. A service industry project must create 10 new jobs or maintain jobs that would be redundant but for the investment. Third and very important, receipts from the fund for service industry schemes are paid to the Government and not to the individual promoter of the scheme who will clearly benefit from help from public funds. Instead, the receipts will enable the Government to go ahead with more regional assistance in the future than could have been managed otherwise.
  The other European funds, such as the Social Fund and the Coal and Steel Community Fund, are not very relevant to the problems of the tourist industry. They are mainly concerned with matters such as the retraining of the unemployed. There has also been considerable interest in the industry about the possibility of finance from the European Investment Bank. The EIB has wide lending powers but it has to operate within a system of priorities. At present—the United Kingdom supports this—the bank's priorities are regional development and energy. The EIB is likely to consider favourably only substantial projects which will make a
  626
  real contribution to employment in or the infrastructures of our assisted areas. If small hoteliers have projects in the assisted areas they can discuss them with Finance for Industry, which can act as the EIB's agent in this sector. For small and large companies the loans are in foreign currency and real exchange risks have to be taken into account.
  It would not be right for me to finish without joining in congratulating the tourism industry on its fine performance in its contribution to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. For example, last year 8 million overseas visitors spent £834 million in Britain, excluding the fares paid to British carriers. The importance and value of this contribution is more than equalled by the import-saving task that the industry performs in catering for our own people who spend their holidays in Britain rather than overseas. Both tasks are equally valuable.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are fully aware of the great importance of the industry's contribution to our balance of payments and our invisible earnings. In spite of the industry's problems—and which industries do not have problems at the moment?—I hope that it will continue to succeed in both spheres.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing and Social Work (Morris Report)
  Housing and Social Work (Morris Report)
  Rates
  Rates
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Medical Consultants
  Medical Consultants
  Employment
  Employment
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  Crofts (Legislation)
  Crofts (Legislation)
  Lamb
  Lamb
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Salmon Fishing
  Salmon Fishing
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Fishing
  Fishing
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
ENVIRONMENT
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  M11
  M11
  Local Government (Maladministration)
  Local Government (Maladministration)
  Development and Demolition Control
  Development and Demolition Control
  Windscreens
  Windscreens
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  Housing
  Housing
  Rates
  Rates
EMPLOYMENT
  Wealth Distribution (Scotland)
  Wealth Distribution (Scotland)
  Wales
  Wales
  Overseas Students (Benefits)
  Overseas Students (Benefits)
  Government Offices
  Government Offices
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Leek
  Leek
  Boatbuilding
  Boatbuilding
  Council Houses (Allocation)
  Council Houses (Allocation)
  Fair Wages Resolution
  Fair Wages Resolution
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Quarantine
  Quarantine
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Alcoholic Drinks (Labelling)
  Alcoholic Drinks (Labelling)
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  CIVIL ACTIONS
  CIVIL ACTIONS
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Doctors (Pay)
  Doctors (Pay)
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Thanet Hospitals
  Thanet Hospitals
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Supplementary Benefit (Appeal Tribunals)
  Supplementary Benefit (Appeal Tribunals)
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
  Regional Health Authorities (Strategic Plans)
  Regional Health Authorities (Strategic Plans)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Walsall General Hospital (Evacuation of Patients)
  Walsall General Hospital (Evacuation of Patients)
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Hospital Boiler Houses
  Hospital Boiler Houses
  Nottingham Hospitals (Waiting List)
  Nottingham Hospitals (Waiting List)
  Health and Safety at Work
  Health and Safety at Work
  Sex Operations
  Sex Operations
  Birth Certificates
  Birth Certificates
  Moneylending
  Moneylending
  Childbirth
  Childbirth
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Health Authorities (Staffs)
  Health Authorities (Staffs)
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons (Training Centre)
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons (Training Centre)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Vehicles (Safety Record)
  Police Vehicles (Safety Record)
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Urban Aid (Walsall)
  Urban Aid (Walsall)
  Brixton Prison (Escapes)
  Brixton Prison (Escapes)
  Prisoners on Remand (Communal Recreation Rooms)
  Prisoners on Remand (Communal Recreation Rooms)
  Special Branch (Recruitment of Graduates)
  Special Branch (Recruitment of Graduates)
  Commonwealth Citizens (United Kingdom Entry)
  Commonwealth Citizens (United Kingdom Entry)
  Broadcasting Services
  Broadcasting Services
  Crime Categorisation
  Crime Categorisation
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Rape
  Rape
  Television Licences (Appeal Court of Decision)
  Television Licences (Appeal Court of Decision)
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
DEFENCE
  Air Bases (East Anglia)
  Air Bases (East Anglia)
  Computers
  Computers
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Maintained Schools (Staff)
  Maintained Schools (Staff)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Business Education
  Business Education
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Interests
  Members' Interests
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Limitation
  Income Limitation
  Revenues (Wales)
  Revenues (Wales)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Chilean Debt
  Chilean Debt
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Pensions (Inflation Proofing)
  Pensions (Inflation Proofing)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Low-In come Families
  Low-In come Families
  Customs Patrols (Northern Ireland)
  Customs Patrols (Northern Ireland)
INDUSTRY
  Chrysler (UK) Ltd.
  Chrysler (UK) Ltd.
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Post Office Factories
  Post Office Factories
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd.
  Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd.
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Aerospace
  Aerospace
  Boats
  Boats
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Electricity (Pump Storage)
  Electricity (Pump Storage)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  British Standards Institution
  British Standards Institution
TRADE
  Luton
  Luton
  Eurocontrol
  Eurocontrol
  Boats
  Boats
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
  Supermarkets
  Supermarkets
  Glass
  Glass
  Company Investigations
  Company Investigations
  Patent Conventions
  Patent Conventions
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Detainees Released and Rearrested
  Detainees Released and Rearrested
  Magilligan Prison
  Magilligan Prison
  Police (Observing and Reporting Duties)
  Police (Observing and Reporting Duties)
  Direct Labour Schemes
  Direct Labour Schemes
  Wanted Persons
  Wanted Persons
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  RUC Special Patrol Group
  RUC Special Patrol Group
  Para-military Groups
  Para-military Groups
  Law Enforcement
  Law Enforcement
  Murder and Armed Robberies
  Murder and Armed Robberies
  IRA Cease-fire
  IRA Cease-fire
  Mullaghduff-Aughnacloy (Border Crossings)
  Mullaghduff-Aughnacloy (Border Crossings)
  Incident Centres
  Incident Centres
  Farms (Border Areas)
  Farms (Border Areas)
  Compensation (Prisoners and Terrorism Victims)
  Compensation (Prisoners and Terrorism Victims)
  Criminal Offenders
  Criminal Offenders
WALES
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  North Wales Association for the Arts
  North Wales Association for the Arts
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Vasectomy and Sterilisation
  Vasectomy and Sterilisation
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  Caernarvon (Leisure Centre)
  Caernarvon (Leisure Centre)
  Bangor District General Hospital
  Bangor District General Hospital
  Roads
  Roads
  Public Transport (Experimental Schemes)
  Public Transport (Experimental Schemes)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Planning Decisions (Local Authority Costs)
  Planning Decisions (Local Authority Costs)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cuprus
  Cuprus
  Treaty of Rome (Observance)
  Treaty of Rome (Observance)
  Lomé Convention
  Lomé Convention
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  European Council (Rome Meeting)
  European Council (Rome Meeting)
  North Sea Oil Price
  North Sea Oil Price
  Passports
  Passports
  Embassy Officials (Children's School Fees)
  Embassy Officials (Children's School Fees)
  International Convention (Trade in Fauna and Flora)
  International Convention (Trade in Fauna and Flora)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans):
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 intend to dispose of the endowments of hospitals which are closed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, so far as is practicable the endowments will continue to be held by the health authorities in whom they are vested and will be applied for objectives as closely related as possible to the purposes for which they were used immediately before the closure.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether it means, regarding hospitals which may be scheduled for closure, that those who are left of the people who gave the money originally will, through the health authorities, be able to achieve the objectives they would like, which might in fact have stopped the hospitals from being closed down? It is the power which I should like to know about.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness can read that into anything I have said, and I think the answer to her various questions is, "No". If a health authority holds endowments received since 1948 specifically for the purpose of a particular hospital, and if, because of the closure of that hospital or for any other reasons, the purpose of the trust cannot be carried out, the general principles of trust law
934
would apply. By that I mean that in such a case the authority would presumably apply to the court or to the Charity Commission to approve or devise a scheme which would enable the funds to be used for purposes related as closely as practicable to those for which the money was originally given.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord for that helpful reply, as I am sure it was meant to be, may I ask him whether he is aware that private money was extracted—legally, I am sure—against the will of a great many people? Will he therefore agree that it is of the utmost importance that the money which was endowed is used in accordance with the wishes of the people who gave the money?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I have already said. I have made it perfectly clear that if a particular hospital is closed and there are endowments, every effort will be made to use that money for much the same purpose. But, obviously, it would have to involve another hospital rendering a similar service.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the consent of the Secretary of State is required before any hospital is closed? Furthermore, in view of the fact that the policy of the Department of Health is now to encourage much smaller hospitals than the district generals which have been fashionable in the past, is it not probable that very many fewer hospitals will be closed in the future than might otherwise have been closed if the district general hospital policy had been continued?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, the answer is, "Yes". My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must give approval to the closure of a hospital although, as the noble Lord and other noble Lords will know, the closure can be recommended by a community health council through the Area Health Authority. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I cannot say at this stage what the future will be in relation to which hospitals will be closed and which will remain.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful for what the noble Lord has said concerning endowments and the cy près principle. Bearing in mind the lack of progress since the White Paper Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, may I ask the Government whether they will consider earmarking, not only the proceeds of endowments but also the proceeds of land and buildings disposed of by subnormality hospitals, for such things as hostels, training centres and up-to-date facilities for the mentally handicapped?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that the use of buildings is continuously under review. I had occasion only this last week to give my attention to one or two such matters. I will, however, bring this point to the notice of my right honourable friend, because I think she herself would recognise the importance of the best possible use of buildings.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, when my noble friend mentions that decisions regarding endowments of closed hospitals will be taken by the authority, does he not mean that the decision will be taken by the Area Health Authority of the district involved?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think my noble friend is right. I was not aware that I had said anything to the contrary.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say that his principal Answer applies to Scotland?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would always hesitate to say that anythink might or might not apply to Scotland. I would have to take advice on that matter.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would be as well for noble Lords to reflect for one moment on the position of hospitals in this country prior to the introduction of the National Health Service? Is he further aware—and I am following up the Question that was asked by the noble Baroness in the first place—in regard to the amount of private money that went into the building of certain hospitals in the North-East, for example, that if it had not been for the contributions that came
936
from employees in private industry, such as the mining industry in Durham and in Northumberland, the RVI at Newcastle and the Durham County Hospital would not be in existence today, because the foundations would never have been laid if it had not been for the contributions that were made at that time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we are all mindful of the fact that before 1948 a tremendous amount was done in this country by a number of large-hearted people and large-hearted concerns. When the National Health Service came into being on the 5th July 1948 there was in existence an Act of Parliament of 1946 which, your Lordships will be aware covered the question of endowments. The care of endowments was again changed by the NHS Reorganisation Act 1973; and I think the whole question of the treatment of endowments, both before vesting day and afterwards, has been adequately covered.
Viscount DAVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on these endowments? I well know what happened to them in the past, but are these endowments in future going to be treated in exactly the same way as they were in the past?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the answer to that question is: Yes, subject to the overriding consideration which will be given to the fact that if it is in relation to a hospital which is being closed for any reason then either the court or the Charity Commission will have to be satisfied that the money will be used for similar purposes.

VAT: SMALL TRADERS EXEMPTION LEVEL
2.40 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the cost or saving to the Customs and Excise Department if the turnover level above which small traders were not required to register for VAT purposes were increased from £5,000 per annum to (i) £10,000 and (ii) £50,000.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is estimated that raising the exemption level for VAT from an annual turnover of £5,000 to £10,000 or £50,000 would result in losses of revenue in a full year of about £40 million and £150 million respectively. There would be some saving of administrative expenditure but this would be equivalent to only a small proportion of the loss of revenue.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is sure that to increase the level as I have suggested would not, on balance, be beneficial, bearing in mind not only the financial implications but what might be called the aggravation implication and the nuisance value of this tax at the lower ends of the registration scale?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are several very good reasons why we should not increase the exemption limit. The first is that our exemption limit is higher than that of any other EEC country. There is at present in circulation a draft Directive which sets an exemption limit which is lower than ours; so that it is clear that the movement in the future is likely to be downwards rather than upwards, and we do not wish to have a see-saw.
Secondly, when a trader is registered he can claim tax on the purchases he has made—and that includes tax on capital expenditure. We know that if either of the limits suggested by the noble Lord were adopted at least half of the traders concerned would continue to be registered because at the present time they are net receivers of tax and not net payers of tax. Thirdly, if a trader de-registers he must pay tax on his existing stocks and assets; and that would affect his cash flow. Finally, if a large number of traders were exempt at one date from VAT there would be an exceptional burden on administration, and other work in connection with VAT would have to be neglected.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, as a condition of our joining the Common Market was that we accept VAT, why do noble Lords who voted for it squeal when it is applied?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there
938
are many more reasons why it would be a good thing to give this exemption, and that the main reason is that small traders are literally being forced out of business altogether? Moreover, if you add this high figure exemption position to the extra rates they are having to pay and to the extra problems that small businesses face, it may be that if they are forced out of business the saving that is made will be very much less than the £40 million mentioned by the noble Lord. If one wants to retain the small trader as an integral part of the trading capacity of this country, then something on these lines must be done.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the noble Lord is "flogging the wrong horse". If he had listened to the Answer that I gave, he would know that more than one half of the traders affected would be out of pocket if they were not registered.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, can my noble friend give me an answer?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his answer to my first supplementary question, and without going into the merits or demerits of the matter, may I ask whether it is a fact that the figure of £5,000 was set a good time ago and that since then inflation has come to pass? Is it not the case that if the figure of £5,000 was correct two or three years ago, a much larger figure must be correct now?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if the figure of £5,000 was changed to take account of inflation since the given date, the figure would be £8,000. But that does not over-ride the reasons I gave for not increasing the limit.

ARMED FORCES: WIDOWS' PENSIONS
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what pensions are being paid to the widows and dependants of the TAVR soldiers who lost their lives in the Trent Weir disaster; whether these pensions

939
are the same as those payable to dependants of Regular Army soldiers killed in similar circumstances; and, if not, by how much do the pensions differ.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the widow of a TAVR member whose death is attributable to service receives a war widow's pension from the Department of Health and Social Security. This pension, which is the same for members of the TAVR and Regular Army, is £894·40 a year for the widow of a sapper or private and £348·40 for the elder or eldest child and £296·40 for each other dependant child. In April 1974 the Ministry of Defence introduced new benefits to member of the Reserve Forces who are killed or injured in the course of peace time exercises or training and whose death or injury is attributable to service.
Under this scheme the Ministry of Defence pays to the widow of a TAVR member an additional pension of £481 plus a further £160 a year for each of up to four dependant children. Also under this scheme the Ministry of Defence pays a gratuity to the estate of any unmarried TAVR member killed attributably. This gratuity was increased from £254·67 to £321·14 from 1st December 1975. These payments by the Ministry of Defence are not as high as those awards paid to widows and dependants of Regular Servicemen killed in similar circumstances, and whose awards in the event of death and disability are part of an occupational pension scheme. It would not, therefore, be correct to compare the benefits for members of the TAVR with those for Regular Servicemen.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that, in part, satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he would agree that it is very unfair, in view of the fact that a volunteer on a military exercise is under the same obligation to obey an order as a regular soldier, that when the order leads to disaster—as was unhappily the case on this occasion—the dependants of the volunteer should receive a smaller amount than the dependants of a Regular soldier although both were doing no more and no less than obeying an order?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the House will be in sympathy
940
with what the noble Lord has said, but there is a difference between the two situations. A Regular soldier is covered by a system of occupational pensions while the reservist will normally have a civilian occupation which will provide cover against death or injury. The two are not on all fours.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider that answer and represent to his right honourable friend the Minister that, in so far as there is a general feeling that a degree of official negligence contributed towards this death, the authorities ought to look again at this matter.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will note what my noble friend has said.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while deploring any suggestion that the Government should spend any more money at the present time, could the noble Lord say what the cost of the concession would be, if it were made, in the light of payments made, for example, in the last three years?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will agree, I shall write to him on this matter. It cannot be a large sum.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, is it possible for other noble Lords to have the benefit of a copy of this letter?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will see that this is written in the record.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, has my noble friend taken note of the fact that there is another difference between the regular soldier or Serviceman and the TAVR category, inasmuch as the soldier receives a salary while the member of the TAVR has no salary and receives only an annual bounty which is a mere pittance?
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, bearing in mind the role that the TAVR play as a reserve to our Armed Forces in our operational support to NATO, and bearing in mind also the fact that these TAVR soldiers must train, may I ask whether the noble Lord would think again in order to bring into line the pension rights of these two categories of Servicemen who

941
are injured while undergoing training in essential operational training for a possible future role?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will make a note of what the noble Lord said and include it in my reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord like any help with the Treasury? Could the noble Lord answer, please?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can always count upon the noble Baroness in this matter.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord meant by the piece of "officialese" when he used the word "attributable"? Are the deaths of these soldiers attributable or non-attributable? Would the noble Lord bear in mind that the conditions in which these soldiers were serving were on all fours with the conditions of Regular soldiers? What has gone wrong here is that the Ministry of Defence have allowed two separate schemes to be evolved. In fact there should be one scheme covering these men because they are on all fours with the position of a Regular solder ordered to carry out that duty.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the word "attributable" which, as the noble Lords says, is jargon, means attributable to service in the military field. The whole House is in sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. There are factors other than simply the death or serious accident taking place during training—the private life and conditions of the individual—which must also be taken into account.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if this category was embodied—which is the technical term used for the TAVR in these circumstances—if this accident had happened on the day of the embodiment the victims would have been treated as Regular soldiers. Why, therefore, is it not so in this case?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a big question. It is obviously a matter of concern to this House. Perhaps the noble Lord would agree to put
942
down an Unstarred Question which we can discuss.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many gross anomalies in the treatment of widows of ex-Servicemen? The time has come to look at these anomalies.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I intervene to suggest that we move to the next Question but, recognising the importance which the House attaches to this matter and my own Ministerial responsibilities for pensions within the Civil Service, I will take a personal look at this. Perhaps in a few weeks' time, if a Question were nut down, we should be in a better position to answer it.

WOODLAND ACREAGE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
2.53 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to figures published by the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association showing a drop of 46 per cent. in the acreage of woodlands in the private sector planted in the season 1974–75; whether they have any figures similarly compiled to show the drop in the acreage planted in England and Wales over the same period; and what they estimate the level of such planting will be over the season 1975–76 for the whole of Great Britain.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, Ministers have noted with interest the survey figures published by the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association Limited. I understand that the Timber Growers' Organisation Limited are making a similar survey of planting in England and Wales, but no information has so far been received about the result. No official estimate of private planting in Great Britain for the 1975–76 season can be given as the extent will depend upon the decisions of a great many individual woodland owners.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, so far as it goes, may I ask whether he will make further inquiries because there is already considerable information available, all of which points to a big reduction in the last planting season and a still bigger reduction in the planting season just starting? When noticing this drop following immediately on recent changes in Government policy, and more particularly in taxation, will he agree that there is here more than just coincidence? It is a direct result of those changes in Government policy which are inappropriate to the forestry industry.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I agree that a pattern is now beginning to emerge. It should also be said that so far as private sector planting is concerned the reduction may partly be accounted for by the general economic situation and of course the restriction of the timber trade in Europe at the present time.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider reintroducing grants for planting in the private sector?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this is a matter about which I will take note.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, for the first time for 18 years, I have not planted trees in my particular area, and I know of many other owners who have not done so? If the Government continue with their capital transfer tax and wealth tax on woodlands the whole of private forestry will become a desert.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government are aware that there is concern. They also believe that the report from the Timber Growers' Organisation Limited may prove to be of some help.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many tree nurseries have had to destroy many young plants simply because people have not been able to plant them? If so, what action will the Government take to ensure that planting is continued?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I was not aware of that. I will look into the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended on Wednesday the 17th instant for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Wigg over that standing in the name of the Lord Shackleton.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I do not know whether this Motion is debatable, but as my name is mentioned here I should like to know the circumstances in which this transfer has taken place, for as I understand it—
Several Noble Lords: Speak up!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, as I understand the situation, it is this. I entered my name in a race in which there were four runners; therefore there is no place betting, it all goes on to win. I lost and make no complaint about that. I will try again on another occasion. But I was telephoned and told that the noble Lord who had won had scratched. He made approaches to me as if I should be grateful, but I am not. I had arranged to speak to my Motion on that date and had altered my plans accordingly. I never look a gift horse in the mouth, so if I have moved up one through disqualification of the first two, I accept it. The circumstances in which a noble Lord enters his name in the ballot and then for some trivial reason—no explanation is given—removes his name, does not affect me very much; I am not important. But it is a reflection upon the House as a whole, and other noble Lords may be interested in the subjects raised in the Motions. But for a noble Lord to merely remove his name and, without notice of any kind, to do another little jiggery-pokery, reminds me of the Christmas draw in my regiment when I was a private soldier. The company sergeant-major always won the turkey!
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot follow my noble friend either in his regiment or on the racecourse as I

945
am not expert in either. I can assure him that what has taken place is according to the practice of your Lordships' House. We always draw for names. The first two from the ballot are the successful ones and we always have a third and a fourth in case, for some reason, one of the first two—or both, as once happened—should have to remove their names. I am sorry that my noble friend finds himself inconvenienced by this absolutely normal practice. The third name we draw out moves up. If I may explain why my noble friend's Motion is ahead of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, it is because Lord Shackleton has particularly urgent business and is unable to move up on that afternoon. We hope the noble Lord can move his Motion and we shall look forward to the important debate which will ensue.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, next time the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, asks a question perhaps he could speak up, because it sounded as if it might have been rather a good question. One has had to gather what it was about from the noble Baroness who replied. We could not hear a word of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry; but I am not responsible for the electronics.
Lord GLENDEVON: We still cannot hear you!
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is there any record of any sergeant-major ever previously having complained of winning a turkey?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RENTON COMMITTEE REPORT ON LEGISLATION
3.0 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE rose to call attention to the Report of the Renton Committee on the Preparation of Legislation (Cmnd. 6053); and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I feel greatly privileged to move it. It raises a matter of great importance to our society and the ordinary citizen. Informed opinion has
946
been deeply and increasingly, and rightly, disturbed by the obscurity of much modern legislation, and when I say "modern" I do not merely mean in the last decade or so. We are going through a period of statutory activism. It has already lasted a long time and is likely to continue. The citizen is affected in his most intimate life. One example would be the Children Act, which was passed in the last Session, about which I shall venture to say more in a moment. But there are also the large statutory innovations creating new rights, benefits and duties which arise out of the welfare legislation that has taken place during this century. If the statutory provisions are obscure, arcane and hierophantic, then the citizen is deprived of his right to live under the rule of law. Indeed, if it is understandable, or largely understandable, only by the officials who have to work the scheme, to that extent we are moving from a democratic to a bureaucratic State. A certain amount of that has to be accepted, but a great deal of the obscurity is unnecessary, and it was because of public concern that the Renton Committee was set up.
Certainly my first duty—and it is one which I perform with pleasure—must be to congratulate the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation on their work, and to express our gratitude for it. Obviously immense labour has been involved. They made detailed provisions for improvement, and I am particularly glad that the two distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who were on that Committee are to speak in this debate. Indeed, I am very glad they are to speak today for another reason, which is that it would be a great pity if this were to be purely a lawyers' debate. Your Lordships' House should not this afternoon become a lawyers' paradise—which I take to be a place where the serpent is firmly entwined round the Tree of Knowledge, if not round the Tree of Life—and I am very glad that a number of those who are not lawyers are to speak today.
I shall have to draw attention to some specific statutory obscurities, but I want to say at the outset that I would not wish anything I say to be taken as a criticism of the draftsmen or of the draftsmen's Office. I have had to work with Parliamentary draftsmen in a number of

947
capacities over a number of years and I have nothing but admiration for their skill, patience, industry and dedication for the purposes of our statutory programme. Indeed, it is not the draftsman who is at fault; it is the system which is at fault. The machinery and the method are both wrong, as was firmly brought out by the Committee.
I wanted to refer to one or two examples, as I have said. Perhaps the most blatant one is that cited in the Renton Report in paragraph 6.3 at page 28. This concerns a provision of the National Insurance Act 1946, and it has a number of lessons to teach. It reads:
"For the purpose of this Part of the Schedule a person over pensionable age, not being an insured person, shall he treated as an employed person if he would he an insured person were he under pensionable age and would be an employed person were he an insured person".
There was a time when I believe I understood that, but that was many years ago and much bilge has passed under the bridges since then. I am quite sure that the officials who worked the scheme understood it, and in fact it is a very scientific piece of drafting. It has one disadvantage, but that is an insuperable one. It appears in a National Insurance Act and deals with contributions that have to be made. In other words, it deals with taxation—a method of raising public money—and what is quite certain is that it could not possibly be understood by the ordinary person affected by it. That seems to me something which is very wrong.
There are also several other lessons to be learned. That provision was repeated in a number of other National Insurance Acts passed by successive Governments, which shows that there is no one Party or one Government which is responsible for obscurity. It disappeared finally in agale of laughter; but the situation still remains, requiring statutory provision. Alternative statutory provision has been made, and that suggests that it was never necessary to couch a provision in such an obscure way at any time.
Perhaps I might invite your Lordships to look at the enactments set out in Appendix B of the Report. There are many examples of obscure legislation set out seriatim there, in which are cited the
948
criticisms made by famous judges noted for their penetration. The late Lord Reid is one whose words are freely quoted: he confessed himself, over several of those enactments, to be completely baffled as to what they were getting at. Your Lordships will remember the Children Bill which was passed in the last Session. That was an example—a bad one—of legislation by reference. The Renton Report has a very sophisticated discussion of legislation by reference, and I do not think that any future discussion can take place without bearing in mind what is analysed there. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in one case in regard to that Act what was described as "a particularly offensive example of legislation by reference"was—I should have thought, without any difficulty—subsequently amended. This tends to show that it was never necessary originally and was almost certainly due to the draftsman having to work under excessive pressure. But the Act still contains a great deal of legislation by reference, and if I may, I shall presume to return to that later in my remarks.
So here we have a real evil and the question is: how should it be corrected? We have, first, the necessity of improving the machinery; and, secondly, the necessity of improving the method of legislation. The Committee on the Preparation of Legislation made a number of detailed suggestions and your Lordships will, I know, be waiting to hear from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack what is the reaction of the Government to them. It will not only be this Government which is closely watched, but every successive Government from now on, to see how far those provisions are implemented.
May I first turn to the question of machinery. It seems to me that what one wants is improved scrutiny of legislation with regard not to its policy but specifically to its perspicuousness and clarity, and I think that that improved scrutiny is needed at two stages. One is before the introduction of a Bill to Parliament, and the other is during its passage through Parliament. With regard to the scrutiny before introduction, that was outside the terms of reference of the Renton Committee although there has been some correspondence recently published between Sir David Renton and the Prime Minister which touches on the matter, and I know that the Renton Committee considered

949
the preparation before introduction. If I am to discuss this subject, I think I shall have to refer to the committee organisation of the Executive, which I believe is treated with quite unnecessary secrecy. It was well known long before the Crossman Diaries; Herbert Morrison discussed it in his book, Parliament and Government; it was discussed by Professor Jennings in his famous book on Cabinet Government. Therefore I shall presume to touch to some extent on the committees of the Executive.
It seems tome that there is one Committee admirably adapted and placed to scrutinise legislation, not with regard to its policy but with regard to its drafting, from the point of view of perspicuousness and clarity; that is, the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet. It is not a policy committee at all—any policy matter that is thrown up there is referred back to the appropriate policy committee—and I venture to suggest that that committee should be strengthened and given the specific duty of scrutinising legislation for the purposes that I venture to suggest to your Lordships. That means, I think, that the Lord Chancellor should always be chairman of that committee, and that all the Law Officers and Ministers in the Law Officers' Departments should be members. There is another point. Certainly when was on that committee we tended to get Bills much too close to their introduction to Parliament for really effective scrutiny, and I venture to suggest that legislation would be greatly improved if a Bill went before the Legislation Committee before its introduction to Parliament in ample time for it to be referred back if necessary for redrafting.
There is another point which I should perhaps mention. I do not know whether Finance Bills now go before the Legislation Committee—they certainly did not formerly—but it is in Finance Acts that we have had some of the most difficult and baffling provisions which affect the subject on matters on which he is entitled to be clear as to his rights. So I venture to suggest that Finance Bills should go before the Legislation Committee. The argument against it was always that it might lead to a breach of security, but, in fact, Finance Bills, to my mind, involve security less than many other Bills, particularly because they are almost always founded on Budget resolutions. So my
950
suggestion as to the Legislation Committee is that that is the Committee which should specifically be given the duty of scrutinising legislation from the point of view of its drafting and not its policy; that it should be presided over by the Lord Chancellor; that all the Law Officers should be members; and that Bills, including Finance Bills, should be brought before it in abundant time before their introduction.
I pass from that to the machinery of Parliamentary scrutiny and in what I say I am repeating a suggestion which I made to the Renton Committee. I must tell your Lordships that it did not find favour with them but I should nevertheless like to canvass it before your Lordships. There is a natural tendency in Parliamentary proceedings to concentrate on policy; but there is, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, a stage in those proceedings when specific scrutiny should be given to the drafting of a measure. When all the policy decisions have been made, the Bill should then be scrutinised to see whether it is readily understandable by the citizens who will be affected by it. I can well understand business managers saying, "Of course, we cannot snare time for an extra stage"; but it seems to me that the Report stage in the Second House which considers a measure could well be devoted to the purpose which I have just described. Indeed, time might be saved if the job were done by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, and I venture to raise that suggestion again for your Lordships' consideration.
I pass from machinery to method, and here I cannot really do better than quote from the Renton Committee's Report itself.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, may I, as a layman, ask a question of the noble and learned Lord? He is an ex-Minister of another place; he understands the administration and how it works in the various Ministries. Is it not correct to state that within each Ministry there is a section which has people of legal standing administering and advising the Minister? What is to happen in regard to the top civil servants inside each Ministry?
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I was a political neighbour of.

951
the noble Lord, Lord Slater, so I hope he will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not answer that question, because there are a number of noble Lords who want to speak in this debate; and I want to cite a submission that was made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Justice-Clerk, who has apologised for the fact that he cannot be here today owing to judicial duties. This was the submission that he and the Lord President made jointly to the Committee and which was quoted by them with approval:
"Most of the problems encountered by the Courts flow directly from the tendency of Parliament to ignore the virtue of enacting broad general rules in which the principal and overriding intention can be readily seen, and to try to legislate in detail for particular aspects of the mischief which presumably the statute is intended to curb. It is an eternal truth that one can seldom foresee every combination of circumstances which may arise, and the practical consequence of attempting to do so and of drafting a statute so as to concentrate unduly on foreseen examples is more often than not to conceal the general intention and the ambit of that intention in a welter of detached provisions which leave one in doubt as to whether a particular combination of circumstances not expressly provided for was intended to be covered at all. It is probably the case that legislation in detail is resorted to because Parliamentarians harbour the suspicion that judges cannot be trusted to give proper effect to clear statements of principle. This, with respect to them (the Parliamentarians), is wholly unfounded. Indeed, so far as Scots judges are concerned, the strength of their common law system lies in its reliance upon broad statements of principle, and there is no reason to suppose that similar broad statements of principle in statute law would not, in their hands, be applied to the facts of any given case, to achieve the will of Parliament."
I should like to endorse that submission as strongly as I can. Indeed, I should like to think that English judges would adopt the same approach as Scots judges.
I have only one rider to add. It often happens that a Statute is to some extent a compromise between two general principles. Then it is important to cover at any rate the major foreseen examples where the principles may conflict. An outstanding example is the Race Relations Act 1968. There can be no question but that the general principle was discountenance of racial discrimination. Equally, there can be no question but that it was felt that it was undesirable or impossible to vindicate that principle in every situation, particularly private and domestic
952
situations. But one very important situation which was foreseen was racial discrimination by clubs. This was known to be widespread. Indeed, the Minister in charge of the Bill in this House was asked specifically about it and said that the Bill was not intended to deal with bona fide private members' clubs. That was never written into the Bill.
We had a debate on a Bill that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in February last. It was obviously a surprise to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, both of whom were, I think, Members of Parliament at the time, to know that that assurance had been given. This means that the failure to write in Parliamentary intention on a crucial matter, a socially most important matter, led to a failure of Parliamentary control. Parliament might have wished to legislate entirely otherwise than in accordance with the assurance of the Minister.
As a result of that not being done there was extensive and expensive litigation which ended finally in your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, construing the Act, with very little indication, in accordance with the assurance that had been given by the Minister. However, the Court of Appeal took a different view; and the citizens whom the law was designed to protect felt, I am quite certain, that they had been let down by the decision of your Lordships' House sitting judicially. That seems to me to be very undesirable. I suggest that the submission of Lord Wheatley should be adopted whenever possible but that where there are conflicting principles and well-known and important areas where they can be foreseen to conflict, that conflict should be resolved by Parliamentary enactment. I made that suggestion when sitting judicially in the clubs case and I was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilbrandon. I made that suggestion again in the debate last February when I was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was good enough to say that what we had suggested would receive consideration and I am very anxious to know what consideration it has received.
May I say a word about legislation by reference. As I have said, there is

953
a most valuable and sophisticated analysis by the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation. I should like to take the example of the Children Act of last Session to show how undesirable even any sort of legislation by reference can be, particularly in a sphere which affects persons in their most intimate lives and in a measure which has to be used by social workers and local authorities. At the very least it means that anybody who is seeking to understand the law must have two volumes open at the same time and compare them. In the face of the criticism in your Lordships' House a great deal was done to take away the more blatant examples of legislation by reference in that Act, but many remain. In Part III of that Act, 24 sections out of 29 are examples of legislation by reference; in Part IV there are, 5 out of 10, and of the remaining 5, one says merely:
"This Part shall not extend to Scotland".
Neither of those Parts is due for consolidation this Session and so far as I know they are not in the Law Commission's programme of consolidation. Adoption, Part I, is in this Session's programme. The fact that there was legislation by reference which has not been consolidated means that in the crucial first year of the Act social workers, local authorities, adoption societies and everybody else concerned has to work on legislation by reference. It is quite clear why we had that: it is because it suits the Government business managers—all business managers.
When we were dealing with the Children Act I said that I did not want to speak harshly of Government business managers. They perform a necessary task and they are apt to be starved of affection, anyhow; but in my respectful submission it is a great mistake that they should be allowed to dominate the form that legislation takes. If a Bill legislates by reference it is only the new provisions which can be debated; the old law cannot be debated. So that is a loss of Parliamentary control. And when the legislation by reference is followed by consolidation, as it often is, again the consolidation measure cannot be debated. It goes straight to the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation. Therefore it suits the Government business managers very well to legislate in this way.
954
My view, for what it is worth, is that most of the trouble we have had with obscure legislation, not only by reference but in every other way, is due to a desire to legislate far too much, far too widely, far too deeply. I need not expatiate on that matter because, during the last Session, your Lordships had a particularly painful experience, but in this connection, generally speaking, "more" means "worse", and quite unacceptable pressure is put on officials and draftsmen. Obviously most Ministers want to leave their mark on the Statute Book, but unless the Future Legislation Committee of the Cabinet exerts a firm control those marks are apt to be the kind of disfigurement that your Lordships see in Appendix B of the Report.
I will conclude as I began. Legislation which is unnecessarily difficult to understand is a derogation from the democratic right of the citizen to know by what law he is governed. Again I end as I began by expressing gratitude to the Committee for focussing attention on the problem and contributing so notably to its solution. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I know the whole House will be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for opening this debate on the Renton Report so helpfully and, if I may say so, so constructively. His suggestions will, of course, be most carefully considered by the Government and myself, for he brings to the subject a wealth of experience and knowledge. He was, after all, once upon a time Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Solicitor General, and I have no doubt that he, too, had to grapple in those days as a Minister with the problems of legislation; and no doubt did his best, as those of us upon whom the burdens of Office now rest also try to do. In addition to that, he has had distinguished experience as a Lord of Appeal. I shall be commenting upon some of his suggestions in the course of my observations.
In debating the Renton Report I should like to begin by adding my own tribute to the many that have already been paid to Sir David Renton and his colleagues on the Committee for their most valuable Report. I am particularly glad to see

955
from the list of distinguished speakers, lawyers and laymen alike, who are to take part in the debate that I am to be followed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and by my noble friend Lady Bacon, both of whom made distinguished contributions to the work of the Committee.
Gladstone once said of the preparation of one of his Budgets that he did not call the task "Herculean" because Hercules could not have done it. The task facing the Renton Committee must have been equally daunting because no inquiry of the kind they undertook had taken place for 100 years and in the meantime the Statute Book, like Topsy, "just growed and growed". Since the last war, in particular, there has been an unprecedented growth in the volume of legislation. As the Report said, some idea of the current flow of legislation can be obtained from the number of pages added to the Statute Book in the three decades from 1943 to 1972. In the period 1943 to 1952, there were 15,600 pages; 1953 to 1962, 11,000; 1963 to 1972, 18,000. In 1973 alone the addition to the Statute Book was no less than 2,248 pages. I have not immediately available the figure for1974; I suspect it might well have exceeded that number.
The Committee go on to say—this was a point made by the noble and learned Lord in pointing out the importance of the state and the content of legislation—that:
"There is hardly any part of our national life or our personal lives that is not affected by one statute or another. The affairs of local authorities, nationalised industries, public corporations and private commerce are regulated by legislation. The life of the ordinary citizenis affected by various provisions of the Statute Book from cradle to grave. His birth is registered, his infant welfare protected, his education provided, his employment governed, his income and capital taxed, much of his conduct controlled and his old age sustained according to the terms of one statute or another".
The formidable accumulation of Statute Law to which the Committee drew attention in Chapter 7 of their Report is not necessarily an indication of the amount of Statute Law in force at any moment of time.
In February 1974, for instance, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner ascertained by a Question in this House that there were 3,480 Acts of Parliament
956
on the Statute Book on 1st January 1974, as compared with a higher figure of 3,680 on 1st October 1964. That shows that the healthy process of consolidation, which I am happy to say in the year 1974–75 produced 17 Consolidation Acts amounting to 870 pages and similar exercises of Statute Law revision and repeal, has succeeded in diminishing the total number of Statutes, despite the steady addition of new legislation to which we have grown accustomed.
This debate provides us with an opportunity as Parliamentarians to consider together how well we perform our task of making laws and how far we are assisted in this task by the Government of the day as the main promoter of legislation, and of course as the main provider of resources for the purposes of legislation. There is no doubt about the need for further improvements in the preparation of legislation. The Committee have provided us with a most valuable account of the difficulties that are now experienced and have pointed to possibilities for improvement, and they have done so in a very realistic way. I will deal in a moment or two with some of the detailed recommendations of the Report, but before I do so I should like to invite your Lordships to take a general look at the subject of the preparation of legislation as a whole.
For some noble Lords, the debate today will no doubt provide an opportunity to speak of the pressure of Parliamentary business, and to suggest that the main defect of our system of preparation of new legislation is that it is over-used. That was touched upon gently by the noble and learned Lord at the end of his observations. No one is more conscious than Government Ministers of the heavy load of legislation with which Parliament has been confronted in recent years.
However, I would like to say two things about this. First, every Opposition is apt to regard most Government legislation as an unnecessary and unwelcome burden on the Statute Book, except, happily, in matters such as law reform where one side has, by an excellent tradition, helped the other to achieve improvements. On the other hand, every Government tend to see all their geese as swans. These conflicting basic attitudes do nothing to relieve the burden which fresh

957
legislation places on all concerned. As a specific solution, statements of general principle might well make Bills shorter. The difficulty about this is that it might in the end produce less certainty if the intention of Parliament has to be divined by the courts from generalised abstractions. This is a fundamental issue which will prove highly relevant in the context of the forthcoming general review of Parliamentary practice which I will shortly be mentioning.
Secondly, Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to thorough consideration of the recommendations of the Report, not only because of their intrinsic importance, but also because the Government are committed to a broad and important programme of social reform as they see it, in which legislation must play a leading part. We are therefore as anxious as any to ensure that the machinery for achieving social improvements is as effective and satisfactory as we can make it. This applies to the Government as a whole, and in particular to those Ministers who have a clear responsibility, within the collective responsibility of the administration, for the maintenance and improvement of the general structure and language of legislation, as distinct from the content of particular Bills. This is traditionally a matter of particular concern to the Law Officers and to the Lord Chancellor of the day. Inevitably there will be occasions when the scope for exercising this function is limited by constraints of time, but I can assure noble Lords that within the limits of what is practicable the Law Officers and I strive, and shall continue to strive, to enhance the quality of legislation.
The Law Officers and I are members of the Legislation Committee, and invariably one or other of the Law Officers and I myself attend the meetings of that very important Committee. Sometimes the Lord Chancellor chairs the Legislation Committee, sometimes he does not. I confess I do not regard the act of chairing as being the most crucial factor in this connection, because chairing carries a lot of attendant duties other than actually looking after the state of the proposed legislation itself. Quite apart from the responsibilities that fall upon the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, I might add that arising out of the Renton
958
Report all Ministers have recently been reminded of their responsibilities in this connection for legislation which it may fall upon them to be responsible for introducing.
The fundamental question with which we must deal today is how best to improve the content, form and clarity of this large volume of legislation which Parliament produces. It is important to identify the nature and extent of this problem, and consider by what means it can be remedied in whole or in part. All the criticisms analysed in Chapter VI of the Report can fairly be summarised in its first sentence: that much of our Statute Law lacks simplicity and clarity. The noble and learned Lord has produced a prime example of the lack of both in the illustration which he gave, which I am happy to think is not very common, but it does from time to time arise and present us all with difficulties.
My Lords, the solutions that are proposed are broadly of two kinds, relating first to the technique of drafting itself and, secondly, to the form and layout of Acts of Parliament. As to the technique of drafting, no doubt we all share the view of the noble and learned Lord that the language of legislation should be as near to ordinary speech as precision permits. I am afraid I must emphasise those last three words. As has been said by Shakespeare himself, "There's the rub". The need for precision, the need for certainty, indicate clearly the first constraint placed on the use of everyday language as a means of expressing technical and complex concepts. This purpose is not made easier to achieve by the nature of the English language itself, whose richness and profusion of shades of meaning makes it the language of the poet rather than of the draftsman. Here I speak with complete impartiality as one who comes from a part of the country where a more ancient tongue is spoken and, with characteristic modesty, is called the language of Heaven.
My Lords, when considering the drafting of Bills we must recognise, as the Report fairly does, the inevitable constraints within which our draftsmen work—the constraints of time, the constraints of Parliamentary procedure and the need to compromise between the requirements of all users of legislation. These problems are exacerbated by the pressures

959
brought about by the volume of new legislation, of which I have spoken, and the extent to which, as we all know as Parliamentarians, Parliament is apt to want it both ways, to have legislation which is simple but also legislation which covers every possible contingency.
The nub of the problem of achieving to the fullest possible extent simplicity and clarity in our legislation is to find solutions that will best serve the collective interest of Parliament, the public, and the legal profession whose task it is to administer and apply the law, and advise upon it. Mr. Justice Stephen once observed:
"The draftsman's lot is hard. A considerable degree of precisionis required, precision which is essential to everyone who has ever had, as I have had on many occasions, to draft Acts of Parliament, which, although they may be easy to understand, people continually try to misunderstand, and in which therefore it is not enough to attain to a degree of precision which a person in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to attain if possible to a degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand. It is all the better if he cannot pretend to misunderstand it."
That, I suppose, is a measure of the problems that the draftsman is up against.
t is in dealing with this problem, and with the difficulty of achieving the right balance between conflicting ideals, that the Committee's recommendations are of particular value. Their Report makes a large number of important suggestions, and this debate itself will be of great value, particularly in view of the expertise and the experience of those who will be taking part in it, in indicating your Lordships' reactions to the Report's proposals. They will, of course, be carefully considered by the Government when they bring forward their own proposals. With many of the Committee's recommendations, including those relating to drafting techniques, the Government are fully in accord. But it would, in my view, be inappropriate for draftsmen to be rigidly bound to follow in each and every case, and regardless of context, a particular format or convention; for example, in respect of the use or otherwise of mathematical as opposed to verbally expressed formula. I hope, therefore, that any failure on the Government's part to undertake to carry out each and every detailed recommendation as regards drafting techniques will not be inter-
960
preted as prevarication or dragging their feet, but rather as recognition, which I venture to think would be accepted by the Committee itself, that the draftsmen must continue to be given a degree of discretion in the application of particular techniques.
I believe, however, that I am fairly reporting the views of Parliamentary Counsel in saying that while they have reservations about whether particular recommendations (for example, Recommendation 28 about the use of tabulated schedules of amendments) would result in clearer legislation, they regard the Committee's recommendations regarding drafting techniques as providing, as a whole, a most valuable summary of the best current drafting practice. Since legislation and its amendment is an ongoing progress, this will be progressively embodied in the Statute Book in the coming years.
In particular the Committee's general endorsement of the practice of amending existing Acts by means of textual insertions, instead of by the alternative process known as legislation by reference, is already accepted in the day-to-day work of the Parliamentary Counsel. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was a little hard on the form and content of the Children Bill, which it seems to me, with respect, did conform to the Renton Committee Recommendation No. 41, and it employed textual amendment throughout. If the alternative of consolidation and amendment had been used, it would presumably have called for the restatement of at least four codes: adoption, custody, children in care and guardianship. That might well have postponed the legislation in this urgently needed field for a very long time indeed, and I doubt whether it would have been welcomed by all those who had to assess the changes in the law to be effected by the legislation. But perhaps my noble and learned friend (if I may so describe him, because it would be the truth) and I can discuss and debate this together in a quiet corner so that we can come to some understanding, if not agreement, about it. But, as I have said, the process of amendment by textual insertions is now the order of the day.
Matters of drafting techniques are, in the circumstances, inseparable from the

961
problem of the number of trained draftsmen. The Government fully accept the high priority which the Committee consider should be accorded to the recruitment and training of more draftsmen. It is a problem with which I myself have been directly and deeply concerned. It must be recognised that an extremely high standard of recruit is required for this work, and that even so, as the Report indicates, it may take perhaps 10 or more years of training and experience before a draftsman can be left to handle a big Bill under pressure. What is needed and what the Government will provide, or seek to provide because it is not easy, is a continuing effort over a number of years to maintain the strength of the establishment of draftsmen. I am glad to say that in this connection the drafting strength of the Law Commission, to whose work Parliament and the public owe a great deal, has, as the Committee recommended, now been fully restore. This is of special importance, for the fact that its reports generally have annexed to them a draft Bill to give effect to its recommendations adds greatly to the value and acceptability of its work; and there is no doubt that the task of translating proposals into the discipline and restraint of a draft Bill concentrates the mind wonderfully.
I now turn to the detailed recommendations of the Report itself, but not at great length, and will indicate how the Government envisage that further developments in this field will proceed. There are a number of recommendations that relate to Parliamentary procedures which can best be followed up by Parliament itself. There are others where the responsibility rests with the Government. On some of these the opinion of the Statute Law Committee will be of great value. A third category of recommendations relates wholly or mainly to Parliamentary Counsel themselves.
The first category includes Chapter XII of the Report (Recommendations 32 to 38) concerning Anglo-Scottish legislation, and several of those in Chapter XVIII. In so far as certain of these proposals would involve changes in Parliamentary procedure, and could in certain circumstances involve legislation, it is proposed to refer them for further consideration to a Select Committee. Subject to any views expressed today, the
962
Government propose to bring forward the appropriate Motions as soon as possible. These will include the consideration of a new procedure for the enactment of separate parallel Acts for England and Wales and for Scotland, or for the reenactment of a Scottish version when the introduction of parallel Bills is not possible. It includes also those proposals in Chapter XVIII of the Report which would involve significant changes in Parliamentary procedure, such as the proposed abolition of Appropriation and Consolidated Fund Acts, and the suggestion that there should be a new procedure to facilitate the incorporation of drafting improvements after Royal Assent. Consultations have already begun between the two Houses with a view to submitting agreed proposals for harmonising the form of Amendments.
The second category I mentioned are matters which fall within the Government's responsibility. In respect of consolidation, for instance, the Government fully accept the importance of doing all they can to speed up the programme.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I ask this question of the noble and learned Lord, because it seems a very important point to me. Is he saying that the proposal will be that Parliament will come to a decision by passing legislation, and some outside body, albeit an agreed body, will harmonise it in a way which will make it different from what Parliament proposed?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not suggesting the introduction of an outside body at all. This will be something done by agreement between the two Houses, by one of those happily amicable joint committees which will consider the matter. I am not proposing the introduction of intruders into this domestic Parliamentary scene. It is our responsibility. Parliament has a responsibility for this; it is not just the Government, or even wicked Ministers. We have as a Parliament overriding responsibilities ourselves.
I was beginning to deal with the responsibility of the Government themselves in this field, in particular in the field of consolidation. Here the Government fully accept the importance of speeding up the programme. As I was about to say, the Report quotes the First

963
Parliamentary Counsel as saying that on a very rough estimate to work off the backlog in the field of consolidation would call for a trebling of the current rate of consolidation for not less than 10 years. The key here, of course, is the availability of resources for tackling this highly skilled work, which takes us back again to the manpower and to the financing. We fully accept the proposal that the main responsibility in this field should remain with the Law Commissions, and with the appraisal of the Committee that it would not be practicable to consolidate the whole Statute Book within a limited number of years nor, as the Report says, to do so on the principle of "one Act, one subject".
The Government will continue to develop the explanatory material which they already prepare at the pre-legislative, legislative and post-legislative stages. Full account must be taken of the different types of legislation. The House will have no doubt noticed that in recent years explanatory material has greatly developed, and also explanatory material prepared for Parliament itself has increased. Your Lordships will have noticed that the amount and helpfulness of Explanatory Memoranda accompanying Bills has increased and been very valuable.
As to the Chapter in the Report on fiscal legislation, the Treasury Ministers and the various revenue Departments recognise the value of the objectives underlying Recommendations 73, 75, and 77, and that group of recommendations is still being considered by the Departments concerned. The Committee suggested that there should be set intervals of time between different stages of Bills. The Government fully recognise the need for proper intervals between the stages of legislation, and the effect of this on the eventual quality of legislation. But I am sure that the House will recognise that circumstances arise when these intervals must, I fear, remain a counsel of perfection.
Some of the recommendations which fall to the Government's responsibility will be considered by the Statute Law Committee. Two important recommendations I have in mind are 108 and 109 in which the Committee propose that the Statute Law Committee should keep under continuous review the
964
structure and language of the Statutes and the action taken on the Committee's recommendations, and that it should report to Parliament periodically. Clearly, the first step must be to invite the Statute Law Committee to express its views of these important matters. Happily the Committee will in fact be taking the problems in this field into consideration at its meeting in two days' time. That is not "instant reaction" it is a happy coincidence that the Statute Law Committee is meeting on Friday.
The Government have considered the recommendation in the final chapter on the need for a new interpretation Act, and fully accept the need for legislation in this field. We shall be discussing its potential scope with the Statute Law Committee. I should also mention that the Statute Law Committee already has under its eye the recommendations in the Report on the application of computers to legislation. These are being looked at by a sub-committee—not, I suspect, with too romantic or, I was going to say, glazed eyes, but that might be a consequence of studying the subject, considering the use of computers in relation to the law generally. The Government's attitude to this group of recommendations is one of welcome.
I began with a tribute to the Chairman and members of the Committee who have produced this excellent Report. I will conclude by paying a tribute to the work of First Parliamentary Counsel and his office, and his counterparts in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I am sure that they, like myself, will be very pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has so paid that well-deserved compliment to them. In some periods in recent months when illness struck the members of the team, their devotion and sacrifice in still producing the necessary work was indeed impressive and deeply moving in its loyalty, if I may say so, having observed the strains that those concerned were under at that time. I am sure that no one is more conscious than they of the extent to which our legislation falls short of the ideal, and I am sure no one strives more to maintain the generally high standard which I be-believe is still achieved. I am sure that this Report will be of great assistance to them and to all of us, whether as Parliamentarians, Ministers, or even more as

965
administrators who bear responsibility to the citizen up and down the country for the competence, credibility and clarity of the legislation we churn out in Parliament.
4.7 p.m.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, many of you must be wondering why I am speaking this afternoon when I have had the opportunity to put my thoughts on this subject in the Report of the Committee of which I had the honour to be a member. I think that it is quite useful that members of the Committee should speak in this debate in order to give a little of our background thoughts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and I were the only two Members of your Lordships' House on this Committee, I think it is right that this afternoon we should raise our voices. I think we have another distinction in being the only two members on this Committee who were neither barristers nor solicitors, nor senior civil servants, ex-Parliamentary draftsmen, or senior officers of this House. I think that we were put on this Committee to represent the ordinary people, the man in the street. This is something for which I feel this House is ideally suited, although I believe this fact is not always recognised in another place.
Before I started work on this Committee, I did not realise the complexity of the job we were being given. It seemed to me that it must be very easy to prepare legislation, but I was speedily disillusioned with the amount of evidence that we received, first written and then oral. I realised that it was indeed a task which I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described as being beyond Hercules; in which case I feel that I must congratulate my chairman, Sir David Renton, for achieving something which is beyond what Hercules could do, and, not only that, but taking the other 13 members of the Committee along with him, so that we produced a unanimous Report, except for three very minor reservations.
When the Lord Chancellor was halfway through his speech I wrote on my notes, "Charming, but non-committal". I still stick to the first adjective, but if I may say so with all due deference, in the second part of his speech he was much more "committal", if that is the right word, than I had dared hope; he really
966
gave us grounds for great expectations and made me, at any rate, feel that our work might not have been in vain. Perhaps this will be the Report of one Committee which will not be pigeonholed for 25 or even 100 years, by which time another Committee is set up to look at the subject all over again, while nothing has happened in the meantime. I was very encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord said in the second half of his speech and I only hope that the ways he suggested of setting about the various recommendations we made will be pushed forward as speedily as possible.
I am speaking to emphasise three points. First, it is fair to say that throughout the Committee we were very conscious of the fact that, although legisrators deal with Bills for a year or perhaps somewhat less, those who have to use them when they become Acts might have to look at them for perhaps 50 or 100 years. Therefore our endeavours should always be to make it as easy as passible for those who have the final consumption of a Bill, if I may put it that way—those who are affected by it—rather than for the Parliamentarians or, for that matter, for the Parliamentary counsel who produce it. This is very important and I assure your Lordships that it was always the Committee's intention that we should keep in mind the needs of those who must use Bills once they become Acts.
Secondly, we were very conscious throughout our deliberations of the need for speedy consolidation. This has been accepted by all speakers, both in this debate and in the debate on the Report which took place in another place about three weeks ago. Thirdly, we are all agreed on the need for less legislation. So far, I am afraid that this Government have not been a shining example of this; they beat the previous record for legislation in the last Session by about 300 pages, although this is slightly unfair because that included Consolidation Acts and, as I have already said, one of our recommendations is for speedier consolidation.
However, it is universally recognised that we need less legislation, so that what is enacted can be more closely considered at all its stages. I was, therefore, cheered by the debate on 19th November. After Her Majesty had opened this Session of

967
Parliament, four of the five following speakers hoped that there would be less legislation this Session and the fifth, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, went so far as to say he was sure there would be less, and if he cannot see that there is less, nobody can. As he is an honourable as well as a noble man, I am sure he will make certain that we are not inflicted with as much legislation this Session and we should, therefore, be able to give greater consideration to the legislation which comes before us.
I have been disappointed by the fact that both in the debate in the other place and in today's debate here there are virtually no Scottish speakers. I think there was one in the debate in another place, but, so far as I can see, there are no speakers from Scotland in this debate, with the exception of myself; therefore it may not be considered too unfair if I descend momentarily from my pedestal as a member of the Renton Committee and comment on our recommendations for Scotland. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord say that he intended to set up a Select Committee to look into our recommendation for the enactment of parallel Bills where English, Welsh and Scottish legislation can be enacted in tandem. A good example of this was the Children Act, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred in a different connection and which we passed last Session. As wedealt with page after page of Amendments that applied only to Scotland, I remember thinking how useful it would have been if we had in operation some procedure such as is suggested in our Report. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, who was the main protagonist on that measure, on the Scottish side, could have had all her fun, if that is the right word to use, in a Select Committee, and those noble Lords who knew nothing about Scottish law and who were not interested in children's legislation in Scotland could have been getting on with some other business.
Another recommendation which I commend—as I cannot see who else will commend it—is that if possible there should be a Scottish lawyer in this House to speak for the Government. We recognise in our Report that he need not
968
necessarily be a Law Officer, but I am sure it would be useful if there was a lawyer from Scotland, a member of the Government, in this House. On the Committee and Report stages of complicated Bills that apply to Scotland we suffer acutely from this lack, and noble Lords will recall how we appreciated having the Solicitor-General in this House between 1968 and 1970.
As a member of the Committee, I should like to say how grateful we were to everyone who gave evidence before us, and particularly to Sir Anthony Stainton, the First Parliamentary Counsel, who was extremely patient with us, and to all the other Parliamentary counsel and draftsmen in London and Scotland. I echo what I am sure all noble Lords taking part in this debate will say; that is, that we are deeply indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for getting an afternoon for this debate and for initiating it in such a felicitous way. I hope I have not spoken for too long. In this connection, noble Lords on the Benches opposite may not have noticed that the lovely electric clock which we used to look at has disappeared from above their heads, presumably because members of the Opposition are always so brief that it is not necessary to have it there, whereas those who speak from the Government Benches appear still to need this aid to short speeches.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising this matter; but as a member of the Committee I am perhaps even more grateful because it means that your Lordships can debate this subject. This House has contributed a great deal to this Report, and I am not now referring to the fact that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir Peter Henderson, and myself were members of the Committee, but to the amount of valuable evidence which was submitted by Members of this House. If we look at the list of witnesses we see that 14 Members of this House gave evidence and six of them gave oral evidence. The whole of this evidence, written and oral, was among the most valuable we had submitted to us. Being a member of this

969
Committee was certainly an experience. It says in the Report that we met on 47 occasions over a period of two years. I must say that we seemed to have rather more than 47 meetings, as indeed we did because there were various sub-committee meetings as well. In any event, this figure of 47 meetings in two years gives no indication of the long and arduous task we had.
The meetings were very long and required great concentration. I should like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, Sir David Renton, without whose patience and persistence we should never have got through some of our meetings. It may not have been the most interesting Committee on which I have ever served but it was certainly the most instructive. I learned a great deal, including a new vocabulary. As the noble Duke has just said, we were surrounded by six QCs, ex-Parliamentary Counsel, officers of this House and ex-Permanent Secretaries and—not to be over-modest—I feel that we did a good job in keeping their feet on the ground.
At first our task seemed an impossible one. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, no similar inquiry had been undertaken for a hundred years: how were we to produce a report which would rectify the confusion of a century? Looking at our terms of reference, far from considering them too wide we felt that they were not wide enough. I know that all committees find their terms of reference too narrow and ask for wider powers, but we wanted our powers widened for a very good reason. The Select Committee on Procedure, which had recommended our appointment, suggested that our terms of reference should be:
"To review the form, drafting and amendment of legislation and the practice in the preparation of legislation for presentation to Parliament."
If one compares those words with our terms of reference, it will be seen that our terms of reference would exclude some of the things which the Select Committee envisaged.
We therefore made an arrangement with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, that if there were any matters outside our terms of reference, such as ministerial responsibility and the office of the Parlia-
970
mentary draftsman, on which we wished to make recommendations our Chairman would write a private letter to the Prime Minister. I shall say more about this later, but I am sure your Lorsdhips will like to know that the letter which our Chairman wrote on our behalf to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, and the reply which he sent to our Chairman are not only in the Library but also in the Printed Paper Office for the benefit of those who wish to refer to them.
I must say I feel that it would probably have been better if we could have dealt with these matters as part of our Report because, after all, the correspondence has now been made public, so it amounts to the same thing. One disadvantage of having to do this in a private letter concerns the evidence of witnesses, because we had to tell them that certain matters were outside our terms of reference. We soon realised that there was no magic wand which one could wave and no single simple solution to the problem we had been given. The Committee produced 121 recommendations, some big, some small, some short-term and some long-term. We believe that all of them would help towards better legislation which would be simpler and easier to understand. It is not my purpose here today in a short speech to explain the whole Report and all its recommendations, but there are a few observations which I should like to make on certain of those recommendations.
A Bill which comes before both Houses of Parliament is intended for several groups of people. First of all, it is for the legislators who arc the first to deal with it. Then it is for the users of the Act who have to refer to it later on and perhaps for the courts which have to interpret the Act. All the recommendations are important, but the Committee decided that the complete Act was more important than the Bill—in other words, that the ultimate user of the Act must take priority over the legislators in Parliament. Even so, it is essential to make it easier for the legislators to understand the Bills which they are considering and amending. Members of both Houses of Parliament find difficulty in understanding the Bills which come before them and, as an ex-Minister, I can say that Ministers also have such difficulty. We promulgate policy in a Department or a Ministry;

971
we next discuss that policy at Cabinet level and the policy then goes to the legal department of the Ministry in question and finally to the Parliamentary draftsmen.
The Parliamentary draftsmen are extremely skilled and they are overworked. They are enormously able at making certain that, in legal terms, Bills carry out the policy of Ministers. The only trouble is that when a Bill gets back to the Minister it may not look to him at all like the memorandum of policy which he sent out to the Parliamentary draftsmen. I believe that one of the kernels of the whole problem is to see why this happens. Sometimes it may be that the instructions from Ministers on policy are not as clear as they might be; sometimes Ministers may not give the Parliamentary draftsmen as much time as they would like to consider Bills. But even when, occasionally, these factors do not apply the Bill may come back in a form which the Minister cannot recognise as giving effect to his policy. It is sometimes difficult for a Minister to find which part of the Bill refers to his policy.
There were times in another place when I was able to explain my policy to the House but when I found it very difficult to explain the Bill. I sometimes had to get somebody from the Department to explain the Bill to me. We have seen this here in your Lordships' House as well. A year or so ago the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who is a great expert in these matters, explained why a certain part of, I believe, the Guardianship of Minors Bill meant what it really did mean. On that occasion, even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, found it difficult to know exactly what the Bill meant. On the other hand, I will say that when a Bill comes back from the Parliamentary draftsmen, it is legally certain. Very few mistakes are made by the Parliamentary draftsmen in putting down in legal, though not always understandable, terms what the Bill means. Here we have certainty as opposed to simplicity and clarity. What we want is to have certainty, simplicity and clarity together, but certainty can sometimes lead to complexity, and that was the problem we had to deal with.
972
I believe that the chief reason why Bills come in a complicated form is the state of the Statute Book. There is need for reference to previous Acts and, when we find those previous Acts, we may discover that we have to refer to even earlier Acts. Sometimes one can go back nearly a century to find what a particular Bill means. If we could wipe the slate clean it would be so easy. The easiest Bill with which I ever dealt was when I was in Opposition in another place. It was the Police Act 1964, and it was discussed in Standing Committee in 1963. This Act repealed every other Police Act on the Statute Book, and so it started from scratch. Thus it was very easy to see what the Bill meant. It was also very easy for Members of the other place—and of this place, I presume, when it got here—to table Amendments to that Bill.
Mention has been made of the referential and textual Amendments of Bills. The Committee comes down quite firmly in preferring the textual Amendment, where this is possible, although we are told that it is not always possible. But we are pleased that this course is now being adopted in some Bills. I hope that this will continue to be so, because as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, it helps consolidation.
One of the greatest contributions towards solving this whole problem which we had to consider would be the speeding up of consolidation. Here I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his work as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation. Together with the Law Commissioners, that Committee has speeded up this work. But as we say in our Report, we are running and yet standing still, because as consolidation is taking place more legislation—not consolidated—is going on to the Statute Book. While this work is being done there is still this backlog of work to be tackled. What we need here is more draftsmen for consolidation. But as we have a shortage of draftsmen generally, it is very difficult to take them from the work they are doing in the preparation of Bills in order to help in consolidation. But just as it is easier to consolidate Bills which have the textual Amendment system, so I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale,

973
would agree that it is easier to use the textual Amendments in Acts which have been consolidated; so in fact the system works both ways.
I will not say much about the aids which we propose for better understanding of the Bills. We have recommended several. I will not go into the Explanatory Memoranda et cetera. But one thing we must remember is that while aids are of enormous help to people in both Houses of Parliament and to the public outside, they are not the Act, and in any future litigation what counts will be the terms of the Acts, and not the aids or explanatory material. That I believe must be a note of warning.
With regard to computers, I must admit that I do not know in detail how they work, but I was very impressed by the demonstrations we saw. It is clear that they can be of great use, not only for those matters within our terms of reference, but useful also for Members of Parliament in that they can save time in laborious search of previous Acts. They could also be of use to Parliamentary draftsmen in drawing up Bills. As I have said, there are certain matters out side our terms of reference on which we wish to comment. One was the organisation of the Office of Parliamentary Draftsmen, and the training of Parliamentary draftsmen; and the other was the answerability to Ministers for the Office of the Parliamentary Draftsmen. Those who have already spoken have referred to the shortage of trained draftsmen. We received evidence from Professor Driedger, of Canada, who runs the School of Legislative Drafting, and we were very impressed by the account he gave us on this matter. This is something at which the Government must look.
With regard to answerability, we understand that the position is that the Prime Minister is in general charge of the Parliamentary Draftsmen's Office, and we should not wish to change that. But we are not quite sure who would answer in Parliament for details of this work. In reply to the letter we sent on training, the Prime Minister agrees with most of our proposals. But on ministerial responsibility he thinks that there should be no change, which we considered to be a little disappointing. I should like to see a Cabinet Minister responsible for the
974
language and structure of legislation in general—not particular Bills. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that this could be done by the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet—if one can talk about that. The noble and learned Lord has spoken about it, so I suppose I can. Like him I have been a member of this Committee, but unlike him, I do not think that it is the appropriate Committee to consider this matter. This Committee is overworked and its members are not always the same people. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor has this power already, but we should like to see my noble and learned friend having control so as to keep under review the general language of Bills.
I am not quite sure what the Solicitor General meant in the House of Commons when he talked about Law Ministers being responsbile for this, but I now understand the distinction between Law Officers and Law Ministers, in that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack is a Law Minister, but not a Law Officer. I have now got that clear, and so I understand from that that he will have some of the responsibility for this work. In another place the Solicitor General said that the Lord President is to set up a review into procedure. I am not sure whether this is for the House of Commons only, or whether it will also include the House of Lords.
My Lords, in conclusion I should like to pay another tribute, and that to the Secretary of the Committee, Mr. Angus Macpherson from the Cabinet Office, who so brilliantly made a cohesive whole of our meetings, ably helped by his assistant secretary, Mr. Robert Cummings. Sometimes there is criticism of civil servants, but we have a first class Civil Service, members of which can do jobs like this, and we ought to be really proud of them.
Some of our recommendations are capable of immediate implementation; some will take longer. But I hope that the Government will take action. Many people have spent much time on this Report, and a great deal of effort has gone into it. I trust that in five or 10 years' time this Committee is not on the annual "pigeonhole" list of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. I hope that the Report will be acted upon long before that time, and then we shall

975
feel that our tremendous labours have not been in vain.
4.37 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I feel overawed in taking part with noble and learned Law Lords in a debate on a legal subject. I am afraid that I can offer only random thoughts that have arisen from reading this most interesting Report. I suppose that the necessity for a study of the preparation of legislation could not be better stated by implication than in the opening words of the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, in the recent case of Daymond v. South West Water Authority, in which judgments were delivered on 3rd December. The noble and learned Lord started his judgment with these words:
"Section 30 of the Water Act 1973 is a deplorable piece of legislation. Those charged with the duty of applying it appear to have little inkling as to its import, for until recently they thought it has a meaning completely opposite to that for which they now contend."
My sympathy goes out to the draftsman responsible who has to read those words. But it seems to me that the strain on the shoulders of the draftsman would be lightened if he could feel that the attention of the court did not have to be riveted solely upon the words of the Act of Parliament, but could, in appropriate cases, extend a little beyond.
This aspect of the matter was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, in his judgment in this same case. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the manner in which an Act of this kind, the Water Act 1973, is prepared; that is, by numerous consultations between the representatives of the Water Boards who will have to administer the Act and the officials of the appropriate Government Departments. The noble and learned Lord then went on to say:
"this, of all cases, is one in which there could have been some source or sources upon which the courts could draw, in the exercise of their constitutional duties to interpret legislation, over and above those to which custom, or vis inertiae, has arbitrarily limited them.… It is not merely a crude question whether Hansard should be quotable in judicial proceedings: there are several other expedients which have been discussed and recommended."
Later, the noble and learned Lord said:
"It is certain that there are other and more satisfying ways of arriving at the meaning of
976
an Act of Parliament, or any other document, than by prolonged linguistic and semantic analysis. Until they are adopted, interpretation may be a hit-or-miss affair, and often very expensive".
On the question of expense and costs in cases where the object of the litigation is to discover the meaning of legislation, I hope that perhaps we may hear later from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in amplification of his speech in the debate on the humble Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, in which the noble and learned Lord referred to this topic. My Lords, as to two small matters that have occurred to me in reading this Report, first there is the question of typography; that is, whether Acts of Parliament should be allowed to use devices such as capital letters, heavy type, italics, underlining and matters of that kind.
The Renton Committee are, on the whole, against this, and I am pleased to note that; but what I would say is that, if this is to apply, then the draftsman must not cheat by using over-emphatic language in order to try to get round the inability to use underlining, and so on. Some years ago there was before the House a Public Bill which contained a clause which said that so-and-so shall happen, "if, and only if," certain circumstances obtained. I ventured to put down an Amendment that, "if, and only if", really meant, "only if". After all, you can go on emphasising for ever if you want to. You can say, "If, and only if, and in no other circumstances"; then you can say, "Whatsoever", and you can go on and on. My Lords, I would suggest that, if the draftsman does this, he is really cheating, and he ought to restrain himself and not use over-emphatic language in drafting the Statutes.
My Lords, finally, I was very pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying that efforts are to be made to harmonise the form in which Amendments to Bills are put down in the two Houses. The Committee point out in paragraph 18.23 that there are at present three forms in which Amendments are set down. In another place the forms in the Committee stage and the Report stage are different, and in your Lordships' House a third form exists which is different from the other two; and I must say I was pleased that

977
the Committee suggested that the form adopted in your Lordships' House was superior to the other two. I dare say that the officials of the two Houses are well acquainted with all this and are able to work the system, but I am thinking about persons and bodies outside Parliament who wish to put forward Amendments and who wish to be meticulous and get them down in exactly the right form. It is really too much to expect them to master three different ways of expressing the same thing in Parliament; so I was very pleased indeed to hear that this matter is to be harmonised.
There are, of course, certain things that we do differently in the two Houses, such as voting "Content" or "Not-Content" or "Aye" and "No", which are interesting and no doubt have interesting historical backgrounds, but I do not think this matter of the form of Amendments falls within that class. So I close on the happy note that I was pleased to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is to be harmonisation on this matter.
4.46 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure that recommended the Renton Committee's appointment, I should like to voice my congratulations to Sir David Renton and his colleagues for their excellent Report, but I am afraid my congratulations are tempered with a slight amount of disappointment, for which they are not responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, explained, we had recommended a wider remit for this Committee; and, as the Committee explain in paragraph 1.2 of their Report, the excluded areas—policy formulation and the management of the legislative programme—were important and indeed vital matters in relation to the problems to which the Committee were trying to seek a solution.
It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, a hundred years since the last inquiry into this subject, and therefore it was vital that there should be no restriction placed on this inquiry. As it was, it was rather as if a bandage had been placed over the eagle-eyes of the expert members of the Committee; and I deeply regret it. It may
978
well be that it was the fault of my own Committee's recommendation, when we recommended that this should be examined by a Departmental Committee. It may well be that policy formulation and the management of the legislative programme are matters which should be looked at by a Select Committee rather than by a Departmental Committee. If that is so, then it is not too late and I would urge the Government to appoint a Joint Select Committee to examine whether policy formulation or the management of the legislative programme affect in any way adversely the simplicity and the clarity of Statute law. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take that suggestion into consideration.
My Lords, of the recommendations, I want particularly to pick out Recommendation 112, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he looked upon favourably. It is 86 years since there has been an Interpretation Act, and therefore it should have been brought up-to-date long since. I see the way that this recommendation would work. It might well be that there would be a sort of statutory dictionary, and words that are defined in that dictionary could not be used in any other Statute with a different meaning. If one were to get that, a good deal of the confusion in Statutes would be avoided. But to my mind, my Lords, paragraph 1.10 goes to the heart of the matter, and I should like to read this paragraph to your Lordships. It says:
"We must add that little can be done to improve the quality of legislation unless those concerned in the process are willing to modify some of their most cherished habits. We have particularly in mind the tendency of all Governments to rush too much weighty legislation through Parliament in too short a time with or without the connivance of Parliament, and the inclination of Members of Parliament to press for too much detail in Bills."
This is the real problem that the whole country faces in this matter. I think that if we go on in the way we are going, with the spate of legislation that Parliament is pouring out, in the manner, in the form and at the speed it has taken place in recent years, the Parliamentary machine will break down and it will no longer be reasonable to expect the citizens not to be ignorant of the law.

979
My Lords, this leads me to a more radical approach to the whole of the question. As I see it, Westminster is really exceeding its functions in this matter of legislation. The nation is suffering from two distressing diseases; first, too large a part of the Gross Domestic Product is being taken by public expenditure and, secondly, too large a share of manpower is being taken by central and local government. The nature of legislation is a factor in both complaints. The complexity of the law, giving wide powers to Ministers, requires a very large staff of civil servants to help him in drafting the laws, the regulations and the circulars. In the local authorities, who are acting really as rubber stamps of the Minister, excessively large staffs are required in their attempt to interpret the will of Parliament and the will of the Minister as expressed in the Statutes, the regulations and the circulars. A letter in the Daily Telegraph today from Mr. Geoffrey Drain pointed out that in the last five years there have been 68 Acts of Parliament and that from those 68 Acts of Parliament 1,000 circulars have come down to the local authorities to interpret.
This, I believe, is what we are suffering from at the present time. It is a false pattern for democracy, and all Governments—all recent Governments—are equally to blame for it. I am not making any Party point in this. It is not only this Government but the last Government before them who are equally to blame. I think it comes from an attempt to secure uniformity throughout the whole of the country, and this is the reason why we have the detail in Statutes. I admit that in fiscal legislation that may be necessary; but I believe that we must come to accept at the present time that a certain degree of variety in the interpretation of the will of Parliament in the several parts of the country is good for democracy and will stimulate greater keenness in local government.
Therefore, my Lords, what I would suggest is that the essential cure for this is devolution of power to responsible local councils, provincial assemblies or national assemblies, as the Scots would prefer me to put it. Then it will remain the function of Parliament to express in
980
concise language the will of each section of the law that they are passing, and it will be for the subordinate legislators to work out how the will of Parliament can be applied in their area. That would undoubtedly mean that more care than ever would have to be concentrated on the drafting of the Statute when it was expressing the will and purpose of Parliament as expressed in that Act. But it would mean that the function of examining subordinate legislation and statutory regulations could be the function of the subordinate legislatures where they could be debated on their merits—which unfortunately at the present time very rarely happens in either House of Parliament.
I believe that this is the only way in which we can make the Parliamentary machine work without it being clogged up (as I have watched for many years) and year by year more powers being usurped by Central Government from the local governments, with the resultant chaos. I think that the time has come when we have got to turn back the clock, as it were, to hand over more powers to responsible local authorities and subordinate legislatures, and to leave ourselves with what should be our main activity; that is, the drafting of the purpose of legislation in clear and simple language.
4.57 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for introducing this debate this afternoon and giving us the opportunity of discussing the extremely important and valuable Report of the Committee under Sir David Renton. I am sure that your Lordships were very glad that two members of the Committee should have taken part in this debate, the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and that they should have given us the advantage of hearing their views.
I think that it must be an undeniable fact that a considerable proportion of judicial time—and I refer more particularly to Appellate courts—is occupied on the construction of Acts of Parliament, sections of an Act or words in that Act. If the doubt is considerable, it is very likely that a first decision will he challenged, that the case will go to the Court

981
of Appeal; and, again if the doubt is considerable, it may well be that it will be brought to your Lordships' House; and in these cases where there is doubt the difficulties are considerable. I remember hearing the late Lord Goddard say that if after a judicial decision in this House there was a possibility of a further appeal to some body of seven judicial persons, it would be quite likely in many cases that the majority view in this House would be displaced.
All that points, as has been already said in this debate, to the supreme importance of having certainty and clarity in the first place. Nearly all well-disposed persons are anxious to conform to the law. They wish to know what are their rights, what are their duties and what are their responsibilities. Furthermore, they all wish to avoid the expense of litigation. Those of us who have been engaged in judicial work have had from time to time to grapple—and no other word is appropriate—with the problems of interpretation. In recent years, the courts had very many cases concerned with the Limitation Act of 1963. One case came to your Lordships' House when five Law Lords, with the best will in the world, were not able to reach unanimity of view as to what Parliament had enacted. In saying this, I should like to add that nothing in my experience has in any way diminished my admiration for the work and skill of the Parliamentary draftsmen. We need them, we rely upon them and we must rely upon them. Our approach—and I think this was the approach in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—must be to assist by relieving them of some of the pressures put upon them.
I had the privilege for some years of being Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation. No one who has been Chairman or a Member of that Joint Committee could fail to have immense respect for the skill, learning and expertise of the Parliamentary draftsmen. I am therefore glad that the Renton Committee decided definitely in their Recommendation No. (3):
"There should be no large-scale transfer of drafting work away from the Government draftsmen."
Speaking for myself, I am sure that that is right. You could not get on with any other system. Yet, with all that skill,
982
it is possible from time to time to have some sections of Acts which baffle exposition or permit of more than one meaning. As the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, pointed out, the terms of reference of the Renton Committee were limited. The document is called The Preparation of Legislation. But the remit to the Committee was in the limited terms of reviewing the form in which public Bills are drafted, excluding considerations of matters relating to policy formulation and the legislative programme. Therefore, it follows that no questions arose before the Renton Committee as to the methods of interpreting an Act of Parliament once it has been enacted.
This House, in a recent case (I think called the Black-Clawson case) considered the problems of interpretation carefully, and there were five learned and helpful speeches dealing with that matter. Parliament could however, on occasion, enact that, in construing a particular Act, reference could be made to some Report of a Commission or Committee, or to some explanatory notes which had been before Parliament. If that were done, I suggest that must involve that Parliament has given express agreement to the contents of any such document. Without a provision in a Bill or an Act I think it inappropriate to refer to a Report for any purposes of interpretation. In so far as a Report sets out a statement as to the existing law, or a statement as to what is called the mischief to be aimed at, it may be valuable and reference to it may simply be equivalent to referenece to a textbook. For purposes of interpretation, there ought not to be a reference to any Report unless there were exceptional cases in which Parliament thought it right specifically so to enact. That would happen only if an Act were a short one, and if the Report that gave rise to it was also a short one, so that it could be said that Parliament had fully endorsed all that was in the Report.
There was the Animals Act in 1971. It is a short Act and there was a Report before it. Some of us thought that that was perhaps an exceptional case in which it might be enacted. I submit that it would have to be definitely enacted that there could be a reference to such a Report. The whole question arises as to whether we could devise some entirely new form of drafting. Could we or

983
should we legislate merely by setting out statements of purpose or setting out guidelines and leave matters to be worked out by the courts? For my part, I should not think at this juncture in our history that that is a practical approach. The approach in European law has been entirely different, and the Report deals with that at page 51 in paragraph 9. It summarises the position by saying:
"European law is basically very different from English law, founded as it is on another legal tradition deriving largely from Roman law, later developed to suit modern needs by, for example, the Code Napoleon. The style of the Code is illustrated by many of the codifications of the nineteenth century."
We have developed on entirely different lines. We have the Common Law gradually built up and interpreted by judges. We have never indulged in a complete or wholesale codification. Our law has nothing like the Code Napoleon as its base or foundation. Our Statute Law has often come about in order to amend the Common Law. Sometimes an amendment can be stated in general terms—perhaps the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 would be an example. But that Act was professedly an Act to amend the Common Law in certain respects. It was Dot a complete codification. Its first section states that the rules enacted by the two following sections were to have effect in place of the rules of the Common Law. So I should not think it appropriate for us to seek to move entirely away from our traditional system and to seek to pick up and incorporate the European system. It may well be that a fasciculus of sections could be prefaced by or introduced by some statement of purpose: that would be a valuable aid to understanding and construction. That is approved of by the Report at page 150, recommendation No. (15). I consider the aim should be always to secure that a Bill which is ready to become an Act should, in the matters with which it deals, be a complete, self-contained end product.
It is for Parliament to decide what it wants to do, and then it needs the aid of a skilled draftsman to translate decisions into words. I regard the position as being rather analogous to that of the owner of land who wants to build a house. He decides what style he wishes to have; he considers its size, its location, the number
984
of rooms and, generally, how he would wish the house to be. When he has done all that he must refer to an architect and get the architect to translate his ideas on to paper, and with precision, in order to decide whether they can be put into effect. So I think it should be, and is, with legislation.
Debate is so important as to policy—it is necessary as to policy—but debate is not a good process for drafting. Once a decision is reached as to policy, there must be an expression of policy in words. The English language is, I think, a fine instrument. It can be used to reveal intention and to express meaning. It is rich; it is flexible—though, with respect, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, that it is possible for the English language to be used to obscure meaning. But equally, if that takes place, may it not be that somebody who scrutinises it, somebody who is a master of expression or exposition, would be able to expose the obscurity and substitute clarity?
This leads me to express general agreement with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said with regard to the scrutiny of drafting. May it be that because of pressures upon us, my Lords, we do not always give scope or allow time to our experts, the draftsmen, to bring their skill to bear? Thus, after the debate is over and after all the Amendments have been considered and decisions reached as to policy, is it not possible to have, even at that late stage, some scrutiny of wording, mere scrutiny of drafting? My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale suggested that there should be some scrutiny at an early stage. For my part, I think we should be imposing too much on any noble and learned Lord Chancellor or upon our Law Officers if we asked them, in a legislation committee, to turn themselves into those who are to scrutinise the actual words, going word by word through a Bill similarly at the end of the debate. But may it not be possible—and I wonder whether the Government would be able to think again on the lines proposed—in many cases at the end of debate and before the Bill is ready to become an Act, for there to be a period of scrutiny, not with regard to intention or policy, but to see whether the words used

985
are words that are as clear as it is possible to make them?
I observe that the Renton Committee felt that this proposal of a scrutiny stage towards the end of the process was not possible; and anyone who heard the debates in your Lordships' House on the Land Community Bill will remember that time was very much in short supply. It did not seem as though, at the end of all the debates here, which took place at the end of a Session, there would then have been opportunity for a period of scrutiny. As our American friends say, everything was being worked to a very tight schedule. But must this always be so? I would ask that some reconsideration might be given to that proposal of my noble and learned friend, simply with the desire to see whether or not there is some obscurity.
We have probably all had the experience of putting some thoughts on to paper, and have believed that what we have written has expressed our intention. We have shown the paper to someone else, and that person has been able to detect some obscurity that we ourselves have not seen. A case arose not very long ago where a ship discharged oil, or a mixture containing oil, in a prohibited area. There was a provision in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1963 that in such an event the owner or master of the ship should be guilty of an offence. Both the owner and the master were prosecuted and they said: "But look at the words—'owner or master'. You cannot prosecute us both. You must elect to go against one or the other". "No," said the prosecution; "'or' is used conjunctively and not in an alternative or exclusionary sense". And, my Lords, that was the decision. But I wonder whether that journey to an appellate court was really necessary. Might not somebody, had there been a stage for scrutiny of drafting, have suggested that doubt could be eliminated?
There was a recent case in regard to the payment of value added tax on television sets, concerning the words "in cases where goods or services are supplied". Did those words refer only to cases where goods or services were for the first time supplied after the passing of the Act, or did the words cover cases where the supply may first have been earlier but where, in the period after the passing of
986
the Act, the goods or services were being supplied? My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has already referred to the Race Relations Act, which provided that:
"It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public (whether on payment or otherwise) of any goods, facilities or services, et cetera, to discriminate…".
What was the meaning of "a section of the public"? Are the members of a well known West End club a section of the public, or are they not? My noble and learned friend has said that a point was raised in debate which would have solved the question that arose for judicial consideration.
Again, I would so much endorse what he said—that if a question is raised in debate and an answer given, it would save an awful lot of trouble in the future if, in appropriate terms, the answer could be incorporated and introduced into the Bill. Sometimes assurances are given in Parliament as to how the Bill will be operated. Those assurances are given in good faith and will be carried out in good faith, but in the future there may be some doubt. Is it not better, where ever possible, for an assurance to be formulated in the wording of the Bill? Somebody once said that if a man tells you that his word is as good as his bond, always take his bond. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has referred to a recent case arising out of the Water Act. Though no criticism may be involved of anyone in these various illustrations, do they not reinforce the plea that anything that can be done to scrutinise drafting—after all decisions of policy are made—should be pursued?
I hesitate to refer to a matter which was debated in your Lordships' House some time ago, but the phrase "industrial democracy" was used then. I have an idea what that denotes and, to the extent that I have, I am very much in favour of it; I feel that it is a splendid idea. But I have wondered whether, if the point were put to a judge and he had to decide whether what was done would conform to industrial democracy, he would be sure what Parliament meant. Perhaps I am indelicate in even referring to this matter, because both Houses debated it and in the result there was a decision that that phrase should be incorporated.

987
Finally, may I summarise my view? It is that it should be the aim of all concerned with or interested in a measure which is before Parliament to ensure that the end result will be a finished product, complete in itself to the greatest extent possible, which, also to the greatest extent possible, conveys its provisions without ambiguity. Parliament is supreme, and how right that is! Parliament must use the English language, and in using it Parliament must surely both say what it means and mean what it says. But Parliament needs the aid of skilled draftsmen. I am sure that all of your Lordships were very glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said as to the concern of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there should be a good supply of these skilled men. They ought not to be in short supply, and they ought not to be so pressed that they are frustrated in giving their talented aid.
5.23 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I must first thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss this important Report, and I should like to associate myself with everything which he said about the Committee. All those of us who have sat on committees know that that means an immense amount of work. Forty-seven meetings for a committee of this size is a lot, and I gather that my noble friend Lady Bacon could add to that the work of sub-committees. We are all. I am sure, very greatly in the debt of the Committee. I should also like to associate myself with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has said about Parliamentary draftsmen. We all know that they are men of the highest intellect who work very long hours, very frequently under great pressure, and I am sure that we are all greatly in their debt.
This Report concludes with 121 recommendations and conclusions and, obviously, one must be highly selective. I have had the advantage of reading the written evidence to the Committee of Mr. Francis Bennion. Mr. Bennion was the founder of the Statute Law Society, and was himself a Parliamentary draftsman for some years. Of course, the Statute Law Society has itself published, under
988
the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, some very interesting reports in this field, and I am very glad that we are to hear from my noble and learned friend later. Mr. Bennion took the view that there were four things which mattered most, and I think he was right. First, was the question of textual amendments instead of referential ones; secondly, the Members of both Houses should be treated better in having put before them textual or other documents which would enable them the better to understand the effects of the legislation before them; thirdly, the whole question of the Statute Book, and fourthly, the whole question of responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel's office.
If I may say a word about those four points, I can deal with the first, textual amendments, very shortly because there is no doubt that the whole weight of the evidence before the Committee was clearly in favour of these. Mr. Bennion had himself suggested a one-sentence Standing Order to be made by both Houses:
"A Bill amending any enactment shall do so by directly altering its text, unless this is impracticable."
The Committee seemed to think there might be some difficulty with the word "impracticable", but they ended by saying in Conclusion 41:
"The present practice of amending legislation textually wherever convenience permits should be applied as generously as possible",
which would, I think, meet with almost unanimous support.
Secondly, as to aids to Members of Parliament, the Committee ended by saying in Conclusion 45:
"Where a Keeling Schedule or a textual memorandum can assist Members of Parliament or others in understanding textual amendments, such a Schedule or memorandum should he provided whenever it is reasonably practicable to do so."
My interest in the Statue Book goes back rather a long way. There is, of course, always a danger when somebody of my age gets up to speak that he will tend to reminisce—and I remember a night in 1947 when the Society of Labour Lawyers, or the Haldane Society as it was in those days, was having its annual dinner. I was only a junior counsel, but our guests were to be our President, Sir Stafford Cripps, and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt. As chairman I had to make

989
the speech to the guests to get them up, and I devoted myself entirely to the Statute Book. I pointed out that there were two great defects of the Statute Book. First I mentioned the enormous amount of sheer junk that it contained—old Acts of Parliament which, whether technically obsolete or not, had to be reprinted every 20 years when the Statutes at large were republished and which served no useful purpose whatever; and, secondly, I asked when we would publish in one Act all the Acts dealing with the same subject.
I pointed out—to take a fairly simple branch of the law—that if, for example, you wanted to get married and wished to know what was the statutory law on this subject, there were 40 different Acts of Parliament starting with one in 1540 followed by another in 1548, dealing simply with the law of getting married, which ought to be very much simpler than the law of getting unmarried. Then, with the impetuosity of more youth than I have now I demanded to be told how long this nonsense was to go on. The Lord Chancellor did not say much because he had come prepared with his own speech to make on a different subject, but he said something about the difficulties of Parliamentary time. But he and Sir Stafford Cripps went away and evidently thought about it, because in the next Session we had the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act—a very ingenious Act which enabled all the work to be done by a Joint Committee and that kept it off the Floor of the House. That got rid of Mr. Bowles.
Since the beginning of the century, consolidation had largely stopped because of Mr. Bowles. He was a Member of the other place who argued, apparently successfully—for only what was called pure consolidation was then allowed—that if in a Consolidation Bill you found one word which was not contained in one or other of the Acts to be consolidated, then, as no two words can ever have the same meaning, that must alter the law. As most Consolidation Bills had something of this kind in them, this more or less stopped consolidation for years.
However, under Lord Jowitt's Act this had the additional advantage of allowing consolidations with minor corrections and
990
improvements. This started up consolidation again and naturally I was flattered when the first Consolidation Bill under this Act was the Marriage Act 1949. I thought that even an after dinner speech sometimes does something!
When I introduced the Law Commission Bill I was anxious that they should have charge of this matter under both heads. They began slowly, simply because they could not find the personnel. I continue to marvel at the way that every year they find more and more Acts to be repealed, because I cannot help thinking that sooner or later they will come to the end of them. When I left Office I put down questions as to how many Acts of Parliament there were when I took Office and how many there were when I left.
I knew that there were about 3,600 public general Acts when I took Office, and I knew that we had enacted another 400 or so. I was told that there were 150 fewer Acts after nearly six years than there had been when I took Office. This is almost entirely due to the Law Commission, both revising Bills—getting the junk off the Statute Book—and consolidation. However, the Report reminds us that still there are about 155 subjects requiring consolidation and about 8,000 pages of consolidation to do. Therefore, I very much welcome what the Committee say and I hope that additional resources may be provided to enable us to get on with both Statute Law revision and consolidation even faster in the future than we have in the past.
This brings me to my last point which I have always thought is the one that matters most and without which I doubt whether many of these revisions will come about. It is the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and what his Select Committee have in mind; namely, the responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. I am not in any way a devotee of what other countries do, although I think that in law, as in commerce or anything else, it is quite sensible to look at what they do because it is possible that if they all do the same thing and you do something different they might be right. I have tried, and from what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said on the occasion when I put down a Parliamentary Question I know that the

991
Government have tried, to find a Western democracy in which Parliamentary draftsmen are not under the control of the Minister of Law, or the Minister of Justice, or the Attorney General. I have been unable to find one and I gather that the Government have also been unable to find one—or if they have, no doubt my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will tell us when he replies. It is possible that everybody is out of step except "our Johnny" and that we in making the Minister responsible for Parliamentary draftsmen the Prime Minister are the only ones who have got it right. On the face of it, however, it does not seem to me that this is likely to be so.
After some time the Committee thought that the key question was, Who is to be responsible for the recruitment, training and work of the Parliamentary draftsmen? They asked the then Prime Minister whether he would agree to their considering this question. He said, "No, but you can write me a private letter". When Mr. Wilson took Office they were again told that they could not consider the question. If I may venture to say so, I think that was a pity. I cannot understand why either Prime Minister did not feel, "This Committee is obviously going to do a great deal of work in this field. If they would like to be able to consider this question and tell me what they think about it, why should they not?"
Some of this correspondence has now been published and we know that the Chairman, Sir David Renton, wrote:
"The present allocation of Ministerial responsibilities in this field, as we understand the matter, is that you as Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service are responsible for the administration of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.…Most members of our Committee feel strongly that there should also be a Cabinet Minister responsible for the general structure and language of legislation, as distinct from the drafting of particular Bills.… The Lord Chancellor is the senior legal member of the Government and is Chairman of the Statute Law Committee. So far as England and Wales are concerned, we think he should be the Minister responsible".
The answer they got on the first point was simply:
"My conclusion is that no change in the existing Ministerial arrangements is called for".
992
It is a practical point. It is very strange—the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and the Select Committee were surprised to find that this is so—that although we have had courses of training for Commonwealth draftsmen we have never had any such course for our own draftsmen. We have always had this chronic shortage.
The training, so far as it exists, is what used to happen in the case of justices of the peace. There was no compulsory training and each new justice of the peace was allowed to pick up the job from the old one. Everybody agrees now that this was not right, and compulsory courses of training for justices of the peace are not only welcomed by them but also are advantageous. So far as Parliamentary Counsel are concerned, the system is the old one that an older and a junior Parliamentary counsel are usually at work on each Bill, the young one picking up the job from the older.
So far as recruitment is concerned, I am not up to date but when I took Office I think that the only recruitment method was to put up a notice in the Halls of the Inns of Court, which was quite useless. I suggested to the then Chief Parliamentary Draftsman that there was no real reason why solicitors should not be capable of becoming Parliamentary counsel. That suggestion was accepted and notices then went up in the Law Society as well. Even women were accepted. But I understand that the Inland Revenue send our inspectors to the universities as soon as the examination results are known. They nobble all the Firsts and explain to them the delights of life in the Inland Revenue. This shows a determination to get results. Is there any large business in this country whose work would be completely held up by the lack of, say, 12 more technicians of a particular kind which would not go out and get them?
The difficulty has always been the question of responsibility. I remember when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said on the Second Reading of one Bill that he thought it contained one of the worst drafted clauses he had seen for a long time. Subsequently he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. were kind enough to come to my room with the draftsman when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, pro-

993
duced a clause which was half as long and twice as clear, but the draftsman said that on the whole he preferred his clause. Nobody can tell him, "What I say goes" except the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister is the only person who has any responsibility for the draftsmen. If the law Ministers—a phrase I was unused to until it was clarified by a Parliamentary Answer, and it means the law officers of England, Wales and Scotland—and the Lord Chancellor in particular were to be responsible for the Parliamentary drafting of Bills, I should be very much happier. The trouble has always been that nobody else can tell Parliamentary draftsmen what to do except the Prime Minister. In a sense they have always been irresponsible because the Prime Minister is not usually an expert on drafting.
Therefore, I am not surprised that in the other Western democracies it is always the Minister of Law, the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General who is responsible. Those who are mainly concerned with the results of legislation, apart from the people, are the judges who have to construe Acts of Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor is the person who is more in touch with the judges than any other Minister. Therefore the feeling is, I gather from the original Select Committee, that the terms of reference should have been extended; similar feelings have been expressed by the Committee themselves. I hope that sooner or later another look may be given to this question of whether it is any use making any one Minister responsible for seeing that Acts of Parliament are properly drafted and another Minister responsible for the men who do the drafting.
I should think that as a matter of commonsense it should have been the same. I suspect that it is not really a case of "everybody being out of step except our Johnny", because, just as with every other Western democracy, it is always the Minister of Justice or the Law Minister who is responsible for Parliamentary draftsmen. I cannot help feeling that probably no Prime Minister likes to give up any powers which he holds, but it really would not hurt the Prime Minister, of whatever Party he comes from, to do this.
994
I remember discussing this matter with the Attorney General of Canada. He told me that he was getting short of Parliamentary draftsmen, because naturally they come under him, and I asked him what he would do. He said, "I have persuaded three of the universities to include Parliamentary drafting in the syllabus of their Law Schools and thus we shall get them interested young". I think one noble Lord has already referred to the fact that there is now in Canada a Professor who runs a 12-month course in Parliamentary drafting, and I imagine this is the kind of thing the Lord Chancellor would do if he were made responsible in this field, as I hope ultimately he may be.
For the rest of the Report, again I record all our thanks to this hard-working Committee and to Sir David Renton for examining a subject which had not been examined for 100 years, and I hope as many of the recommendations as possible will be carried out.
5.42 p.m.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, it is at the risk of tedious repetition that I begin, as every other speaker has done, by expressing our sincere gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for initiating this debate today. I should also like to say how immensely valuable I thought his speech was, not only for the analysis of the Renton Report but for the background which he gave us of what had happened when he was Solicitor-General, with some general responsibility for the drafting of legislation.
Equally interesting, but to me more surprising, was the revelation that we had from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that when he was Lord Chancellor he was not able to exercise ultimate authority over the draftsmen. I am bound to say that is not quite in line with what the late Lord Jowitt said to me, although admittedly he was speaking of the occasions when as Attorney General he refused to accept responsibility in the House of Commons for justifying what he regarded as unnecessarily obscure draftsmanship.
I am sure that we all agree that the Renton Report—coming as it does after 100 years—is a great mark in the history of the machinery of our legislation. I

995
feel it is comprehensive and scholarly and in almost every respect very wise. The outcome, of course, will depend, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agrees, upon the extent to which their recommendations will be put into effect. The experience of many people who have sat on Government Committees is that there is a great danger that recommendations, even when unanimous, are not put into operation by the Government of the day.
If I proceed to deal with two small points and appear to be criticising the Renton Report, it is only because there is not much use in making a speech saying how admirable the whole of the Report is if one does not make constructive—or destructive—criticisms of what appears.
I ventured to make certain suggestions to the Committee and I was immensely gratified to receive a letter from the Chairman, saying:
"The first three pages of your Report"—
he meant memorandum—
"met with our almost complete agreement, especially as we are looking for guidelines as to the style of drafting."
What were the two suggestions with which the Committee was in almost complete agreement? The first was that much greater use should be made of full stops and, consequently, and in the second place, that there should be much shorter sentences.
I cannot make these points to your Lordships more briefly than I did in evidence to the Committee and therefore I trust you will acquit me of egotism if I read out what I said:
"My principal suggestion for simplifying drafting is that more full stops should be used. There seems to be a rule or convention in Parliamentary Counsel's office that a full stop should never be used until the end of a paragraph or subsection."
I went on to say:
"It is usually considered to be a rough and ready rule of good writing that each sentence should contain only one idea. It would appear desirable that Parliamentary drafting should comply with this rule."
The last sentence of paragraph 11.11 of the Report broadly accepts what I suggested. It says:
"We recognize…that there are cases where it is natural for a full stop to occur in
996
the middle of a numbered provision, and we do not think there should be any rule or convention precluding this."
But before that, in the same paragraph, and this confirms exactly what I said about the rule or convention in regard to not having a full stop, they said:
"In current drafting practice a subsection…is usually punctuated as a single sentence; or, to put it in another way, every time a full stop is reached a new numbered provision is begun. We think this is generally sound: where a thought has come to an end—as is normally the case at the end of a sentence—it is better to emphasise the break in this way."
My Lords, if a full stop marks the end of a sentence and if a full stop is normally used only at the end of a subsection and if a sentence should contain only a single idea, then the implication of that is that each subsection, because it is not punctuated by a full stop, contains only a single idea. It is the experience of every one of your Lordships that subsections run for 5, 10, 15, even 20 lines and they contain a great many different ideas.
I referred to what is inserted as being exceptions, reservations, qualifications, provisos or amplifications. I make no complaint about their being put in; it is necessary for them to be put in to convey the meaning of Parliament. What I would urge is that they should not be put into a single sentence, but divided up by full stops. My argument is accepted to the extent that it is said that there should be no convention against the use of more full stops, but at the same time it is only accepted that there should be no objection to it in suitable cases. Yet what I put forward as a major proposal is apparently not accepted, and it is thought that the present practice is generally sound. From the Chairman's letter, I had hoped for something more.
My Lords, I pass from the question of full stops to approaching exactly the same problem from another angle; that is, the number of subordinate clauses contained in a single subsection. Again, I receive some satisfaction, especially in the summary of the recommendations at page 150. Recommendation (16) says:
"There should be no general rule about drafting in short sentences, but there should he as few subordinate phrases as possible before the subject of a legislative sentence or between the subject and its verb".
It is all these exceptions, reservations, qualifications, provisos or amplifications,

997
often inserted between the subject and the main verb, which make Parliamentary Bills so extraordinarily difficult to read. As I said, I had hoped that these would be accepted, and I certainly need not weary your Lordships with examples of what I mean. There is no single one of your Lordships, I am sure, who has not suffered in that way.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, could the noble Lord, Lord Molson, read out to us one of these very elastic monstrosities?
Lord MOLSON: No, my Lords. There is not a single Member of this House, and certainly not the noble Lord who is a solicitor, who has not laboured with Acts of Parliament, and who has not read a subsection going on for nearly half a page, with all kinds of qualifications and provisos. On this subject, the Committee quotes the evidence of the present First Parliamentary Counsel, who says, at paragraph 11.9:
"First Parliamentary Counsel tells us that the draftsmen in his office aim at keeping sentences short…".
I am bound to say that in that particular respect the Parliamentary draftsmen are not particularly successful.
My Lords, on this further matter of shorter sentences, Sir John Fiennes, an earlier First Parliamentary Counsel, says:
"Shorter sentences are easier in themselves, and it would probably help overall to have them shorter, but of course you are then faced with having to find the relationship between that sentence and another sentence two sentences away, which, if you have it all in one sentence, is really done for you by the draftsman".
That is not an example of the greatest lucidity of Parliamentary draftsmanship!
I am not sure that I understand it; but if I do understand it, I am not convinced that it is sound reasoning. As I understand it, what it really says is this: the main argument I put forward—and the Renton Report confirms this—is that a sentence should contain one thought only, then the problem of facing the relationship between one sentence and another two sentences away cannot be solved by having it all in one sentence. Logically, I think it means that the draftsman in fact has "passed the buck" to the construer, who must break down one long
998
and involved sentence into its component parts, which I say the draftsman himself should have done.
For my own part, in all fairness, I admit that punctuation does not solve the problem of interpreting a complex Statute; nor has the draftsman solved the problem by incorporating all these different ideas in one single, unpunctuated sentence. Therefore, I am a little disappointed that two quite simple proposals that I made, which met with the almost complete agreement of the Committee at the outset, have not been more wholeheartedly accepted. This arcane craft of Parliamentary draftsmanship—and I call it the "arcane craft"; I was misquoted as calling it the arcane art"—which has been criticised by so many judges, as is mentioned in Appendix B, and excused in this way by its practitioners, appears to have been accepted by the Renton Committee as generally sound. I hope that even now, further thought will be given to the possibility of having shorter sentences, and having a full stop after each separate idea.
My Lords, as things are, anyone who tries to construe a subsection will often find that the principal sentence is quite short and quite simple. It will take out all the parentheses. One will find a subject at the beginning, and sometimes much later a perfectly simple main verb which sets out the intention; and that, I believe, by a quite simple change in the grammatical draftsmanship and punctuation, could make it very much easier for everyone to read.
One final point: In a public speech, I should like to reiterate what I said in my evidence to the Renton Committee, that much of the blame for obscurity does not rest with the draftsmen themselves, but with Ministers who wish to avoid too public a discussion of difficult matters. I have very little doubt about the example that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave about the Race Relations Act, and the fact that it was never disclosed in another place that it was not intended that clubs should be affected by that legislation. I have no doubt at all that that was deliberate on the part of somebody or other, who realised all the intense feeling that would arouse, and the sense of frustration it would give to those who were asking for something more.

999
The art of drafting in order to restrict debate in another place is merely another application of what we who served elsewhere are so familiar with, the drafting of a financial Resolution in such tight terms that most of the Amendments that Back-Benchers would like to move are in fact out of order. Therefore, I would join with all those who have spoken, and say that if I appear to have criticised the Parliamentary Draftsmen's Office, I recognise that they are devoted men of immense ability who are the victims of the circumstances in which they work. My noble friend Lord Tranmire dealt with a matter which was outside the term of reference of the Renton Committee when he spoke of the immense complexity of modern legislation because of the passion of legislators for trying to ensure that absolute justice should be done in cases that vary so much that it is really impossible to do it. That is another of the difficulties with which the Parliamentary draftsmen have been faced. So I conclude by saying that in the Renton Report we have a remarkable and most valuable document. I believe it will be of great help to the Parliamentary Counsels' Office, and I hope that the Government will do what is necessary to give effect to its recommendations.
6.2 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I listened with respectful and affectionate regard to the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and no one can speak with more qualifications for his task than he, as a Member of Parliament, as one whose evidence before the Renton Committee is constantly referred to with approval, as a personage who, both in Parliament and the courts, is held in high affection; who held high judicial office with distinction even during a period of serious illness, and who now returns here to display a devotion to public affairs and activity as a judge which are beyond the powers of many. Indeed, while he was speaking his speech was so evocative, it called forth so many memories, that I even began to feel in my own memory some limited mental response and resolved to tear up my mental notes and substitute some of the reflections that his speech had called to mind.
1000
We have, of course, to speak with the greatest possible respect of another place, and I propose to refer to them in those terms of studied care and reticence with which they have recently been speaking about us. Because the guilt is there; no one is more guilty than me. I spent a lot of time in what was called "obstruction". I think in one Session I made about 100 speeches, mostly at four o'clock in the morning, almost invariably on subjects that I knew nothing about. I cannot refer to the provocation which made us embark upon that enterprise because of the proximity of a very popular and respected Member of this House whose early utterances contributed to it, and who is now sitting next to the noble and learned Lord who initiated this debate. I am not, of course, referring to the noble and learned Lord on his left, whom I heard with very great respect and attention.
My Lords, things have gone awry. I remember in my very early days in Parliament sitting at the feet of a considerable gamalian, James Chuter Ede, who thought about these things deeply, who loved the Commons, who was a genuine House of Commons man, a man of the highest reputation and character. He said, "You know, we are going wrong, already. There always was a tradition that if an Act was passed it should be respected. We have now got to the stage when one Government passes a measure and immediately the Opposition says that they will repeal it at the first chance they get." We have got to evolve a system, which really did exist historically, when, if the Liberals gave old-age pensions, the only alteration was perhaps to put them up, as indeed they needed. People did not endeavour to repeal, or substantially alter or modify for many years, the Parliamentary reform of this House. That is point number one.
The second point is that we are often guided by ridiculous brevities. "The duty of the Opposition is to oppose", we are told. It is not the duty of the Opposition to oppose, unless you insert the adjective "constructively" or "sensibly" or "reasonably". The noble Lord, Lord Simon, referred to the Report stage in the House. I do not think I share his views of the difficulty in carrying out his wishes, which I do share. So

1001
far as I remember, Mr. Speaker is indeed the arbiter of the Report stage; I think he has the absolute right of selection of Amendments. He has to have regard to the priorities of the Government, indeed the almost implicit claims of the Government for Amendments which arise out of promises made in Committee. The Back Bencher used to get very little chance of proposing Amendments at all on the Report stage. There would not be very much difficulty in making the Report stage, by agreement, a constructive stage in which Party politics would be abandoned, having played such part as they might have done on Second Reading and Committee.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for one moment? Would he admit that in this House it is the case that the Opposition do try to make constructive Amendments to a Bill and we do not consider it our sole duty to oppose? Perhaps the noble Lord would accept that there is a difference between the duty and role of an Opposition in another place as opposed to this House.
Lord HALE: Yes, my Lords. I do not know why the noble Baroness uses the word "admit", as though to extract from me something that I am unwilling to say. I entirely agree. It is one of the merits of this place. Indeed, it is one of the great merits of this place, when matters are not exacerbated by unusual events.
I was about to say that in the circumstances the introduction of the Land Bill was really putting upon Parliament a burden which it could not bear. What is wrong with this place, of course, is that Back-Benchers have really no effective part to play. They are expected to shut up. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, asked that I should sit down before my creaking limbs had even enabled me to assume an upright posture. The assurance I received, I think from the Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when I came here was that one Peer was equal to another Peer, which sounded promising, now takes precisely the perspective of the speech of the Governor of Dartmoor to his men serving 14 years and saying: "One thing we have in common; we are all members of the same establishment".
1002
I speak at this moment with great trepidation. While the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was speaking, I was recalling, perhaps vaguely and somewhat inaccurately, a Sitting once on a mental health Bill Committee, when the whole atmosphere changed. I asked to be on that committee because the medical officer of Oldham was conducting some extremely important experiments which had attracted international attention. I can say on my recollection that from the start of that committee—Derek Walker-Smith was the Minister, and I pay tribute to him—the whole object of the committee was the constructive production of a workable Bill which would provide a liberal-minded measure in relation to the very serious complexities of mental health. I think that in normal circumstances the other place can work together, and I think we ought to try this.
It has got to be done, for despite this wonderful Report it seems likely that it is almost too late now. It touches only lightly on the problem of Common Market legislation, with the introduction of a supreme appelate court over the House of Lords, considering law which does not depend on stare decisis at all, which really emanates from an almost anonymous commission which is issuing laws which at the moment certainly are not the subject of any Parliamentary control, and are issued by the Commission. I speak as one committed and in full sup port of all this. I had no hesitation about the decision.
I recall there was a procedure of assembly with judges for deliberations of first importance. This procedure could be used—I see it is being used to the extent of seven judges at the moment—to give a full interpretation of the whole of a contested clause. It is difficult to defend a system of leaving a second point undecided because the first prevails. Of course, one understands the reasons.
The other problem is that there has to be some reform of the Judiciary, and it cannot possibly come from Parliament because it is the essential factor of our Constitution that the complete independence of the Judiciary should be guaranteed and implemented. I should have thought that nothing is more clear than that that should be done. Of course, there

1003
have been and will be reforms by Parliament in the system which do not raise the question directly of independence. I feel that those sections of the Report which refer to the question of the Judiciary and widening their powers of interpretation—to say that they can have regard to the origin, to the intention of this clause, supplemented, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, by such notes and other information which they are requested to rely upon if necessary—opens up some possibilities that need to be opened up, and indeed there are recent signs that they are.
The clause which appears in Appendix B, the clause which was first designed severely to limit evasion of income tax and which has defied judicial interpretation for so long, was in the very last case—I must not refer to names wrongly—the subject of a very clear statement, that as the object of this clause is to prevent the unnecessary and improper evasion of taxation, we can at least interpret it in a wider connotation, having accepted and understood its purpose. I frankly wonder sometimes why one reads time after time that your Lordships did not have to decide the second point because the first point controlled the case, and it therefore was not necessary to give a ruling. There has to be a full argument on the whole clause and the points on the whole clause. Counsel in one case do not know the points which may arise in another and so on. It is not easy. It is much easier to say these things than to do them.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred in exemplary terms to the use of English. We have in fact still, I think, got basic English as one of the assets of the State which should be shown on a balance sheet. There remains one difficult fact. It is a very odd and almost inexplicable thing that many of our troubles arose from clauses which were expressed with apparently exceptional clarity. In the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, the words, "an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" were the subject of more judicial interpretation than any other words. The words in the Road Traffic Act about the administration of a breath test have been the subject of judicial interpretation in an astonishing variety of factual circumstances, and
1004
judges have said, and Parliament should take notice, that really this is a matter for new legislation. The sooner the Judiciary say they do not understand this clause, and they feel that in the public interest it should be revised, the better.
The other problem about Lord Molson's proposition is that there is not all virtue in a monosyllable. It was Serjeant Arabin who said, "With clarity that can be found from reading", and, Counsel said that the case of AB was virtually this case, but it seems to me that if there were a case that showed more clearly than this case that that case was not this, that case was this case." The monosyllables do not greatly help. Another legislative example concerns the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which was an absolutely standard clause. Section 14(1) was so admirably framed that every slightly dishonest witness knew exactly what points he had to put in his conversation with the trader in order to secure a verdict. The example is of the young lady of Cork who called to buy supper for her mother one day in 1900. She had been taught the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 duringa course at the Ursuline Convent which she attended. This was a case where art undoubtedly improved on nature. She bought a dressed crab for sixpence and inquired whether it was in good and marketable condition, making it clear to the tradesman that she was relying on his skill and knowledge, and she declared that it was for her mother's supper. In due course her mother was taken ill and, by a curious coincidence, her brother was a well-known solicitor. Incidentally, he had already established that his office, which was in the main street of County Cork, came, because of a flowery backyard, within the provisions of the Agricultural Rates (Relief) Act and so got a concession on his premises.
The case was tried by, of all people, the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, Lord O'Brien, better known as "Peter the Packer," first because of his lisp and secondly because of his singular ability to get a wholly Protestant jury for every Catholic. The case went to the Court of Appeal of Ireland and then to the House of Lords. I am happy to say that justice was done, but at the last minute (and I am grateful to Mr. Justice Megarry's book for this information) Lord

1005
Justice Holmes inquired, "What about caveat emptor, "and at that stage a shudder of horror went through the court as to whether the Statute had effectively removed part of that common law.
My Lords, the problems are not easy, but everyone will be better for this Report. I hope that our Parliamentary proceedings may be improved by its consideration and I am sure that the House is indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to the members of the Committee for what they have done.
6.23 p.m.
Lord DENNING: My Lords, I, too, join in expressing our sincere gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and Sir David Renton and his Committee. Having read the Report and its recommendations, I ask your Lordships and everyone to endorse them, as I do. I spend the greater part of my working life interpreting Statutes and from time to time I am appalled by the obscurity of them and the cost which it entails to the litigants to have them argued before the judge, then before the Court of Appeal and then before the House of Lords. The judges often throw the whole blame on the draftsmen. It was one of my predecessors who, after struggling with an Act for pages and pages, said he wished that he could order the Parliamentary draftsmen to pay the costs of both sides.
It may be that the draftsmen are in part responsible, and also the Ministers who may wish to avoid a difficult subject, but the judges themselves must, I fear, bear the greater responsibility because of the methods of interpretation which the courts have applied for at least 100 years. They go by the strict, grammatical, literal meaning and they say, "If this circumstance is not covered by the letter, then the Act does not apply to it". It is because of that ancient rule of construction that the Parliamentary draftsmen have sought every device for certainty so that the judges cannot escape it; they seek to think of every circumstance ahead so as to cover it if they can and, in that search for certainty and to cover every conceivable circumstance, we get these long sentences with obscurities and difficulties of inter-
1006
pretation. Thus the judges have their responsibility.
Some years ago—I think it must be over 20 years ago—I suggested in the Court of Appeal that we might consider the intention of Parliament; that is, that we might seek ourselves to fill in the gaps, to do what Parliament would have done if it had thought about this circumstance. I am afraid that our dear friend the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Simons, whom noble Lords will remember with affection, repudiated the idea that we should fill in the gaps. He said it was a naked and patent use of the legislative power, and that method of interpretation has been in existence for over 100 years and has been largely responsible for the Parliamentary draftsmen having to draft their Statutes in this way.
How glad I am, therefore, to find one sentence in this Report expressing a new principle; so much so that I think I shall invite notice to be put in front of every one of my Lords Justices, and, perhaps I may add, if I may dare do so in front of my noble and learned friends sitting here judicially, they should note this sentence:
"The courts should, in our view, approach legislation determined above all to give effect to the intention of Parliament."
I remind them that "the spirit giveth life". As to the letter, the precedent for interpreting by the letter should be:
"Tarry a little; there is something else.
This bond doth give thee hero no jot of blood."
The words expressly are "a pound of flesh":
"Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;
But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate."
I do not mind a literal interpretation in a case such as that when it would do justice, but it rarely does. If the judges strive in future to find the intention of Parliament, they will do a great deal to cure the bad habits of the past. So far as the draftsmen are concerned, there is another principle enshrined here. If we have only general principles enacted in simple words and short sentences, that,

1007
again will be a tremendous advance. On another page, the Report says:
"The adoption of a 'general principle' approach in the drafting of our Statutes would lead to greater simplicity and clarity."
Often, when I have been faced with one of these 10-line sentences—with goodness knows how many parentheses!—and have not been able to imagine what it meant, I have asked Counsel for an illustration of what they are driving at. I cannot understand the sentence at all until it is elucidated for me by Counsel, who may be attached Counsel or somebody who is familiar with the legislation, and who gives me an illustration of what they are driving at. I would suggest—rather as Sir James Fitzjames Stephen did in the Indian Penal Criminal Codes, which were a very fine piece of draftsmanship—putting in a little illustration of the sort of case which is being aimed at by the Statute. It could be inserted as an appendix. I do not say that it should necessarily be included under the heading of purposes or guidelines, as those might give rise to as much debate as the section itself. It need not necessarily be put in the Act itself but, as the Law Commission does, illustrations could be issued to help demonstrate the principles, and that would help the courts in their interpretation.
However, we must remember that there is a danger about general principles. They mean that the courts will have to fill in the details and that, for the time being, there will be uncertainty as to what the Statute means. However, the report realises that. The details could usefully be put in a Schedule as they are, but, with those two principles—a better method of interpretation and Statutes drafted in simple language with general principles—we should have done a great deal to solve our troubles.
I have one further point to raise. It is our entry into the Common Market. In our courts we have had to consider this Treaty and its interpretation. It is framed altogether differently from our Statutes. It is framed in the Continental manner, rather as I have indicated with general principles and wide statements. It is much more intelligible than our Statutes but much more uncertain. There is a great deal left to be filled in by the courts and, having seen the Treaty and
1008
some of the directives, I am wondering whether too much has not been left to them. However, there it is. We may have to—it may be a good thing as we are now in the Common Market—adopt common methods of draftsmanship and interpretation which will be applicable throughout. At all events, this Report and its recommendations point the right way which I hope we can all follow.
6.35 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I begin by joining all your Lordships in an expression of deep gratitude to the Committee and its chairman, Sir David Renton, for a most valuable Report. I add to that the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing that Report to us in so memorable a speech as that to which we listened this afternoon. So many admirable speeches have been made that I hesitate to occupy your Lordships' time and, if I do so for what I hope will be for a short period, it is to make rather general observations, the particular proposals having been so extensively covered in the learned speeches to which we have listened.
I start by referring to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. This was followed up by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Lord was anxious that the Legislation Committee, presided over by the Lord Chancellor and containing as its members the Law Officers, should perform the function of looking to see whether there was unnecessary obscurity in legislation. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replied that that is exactly what happens at the moment. I believe I can take him even further back because I am rather old in years and I can go back to 1945 and tell him that the then Lord Chancellor presided over the Legislation Committee of the day and that the not very effective Solicitor General of the time, who was, however, very regular in his attendances, did whatever he could to try to remove obscurity. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, reported what Lord Jowitt had said to him about declining to introduce legislation when he was Attorney General if he thought it obscure. I hope that I am not betraying confidences if I say with complete assurance that that was exactly his attitude

1009
when he presided over the Legislation Committee. We were all extremely grateful to him.
May I make a general observation which arises in regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said in regard to European legislation? The Treaty of Rome is extremely generally worded. The noble and learned Lord said that he had looked at Directives and that they also were rather generally worded. I have spent considerable time looking at them and at regulations and I cannot help thinking that they are moving very much in our direction. If one examines them, they are very much more detailed, at any rate than one might at first expect them to be. The first general comment which I should like to make is that I hope we shall not endeavour to formulate our legislation in general statements of principle.
I begin by agreeing with absolutely everybody that we want certainty, clarity and simplicity. If our legislation broadly follows the Continental system of broad statement with the detail being left to the learned judges to fill in, what will be the result? Shall we really achieve certainty? I think not and, in saying so, I do not intend the least disrespect to the wonderful services which our independent judiciary renders to us. But what happens? The matter goes before a learned judge in the first instance. That is one opinion, which will be expressed in his language. It goes to the Court of Appeal, where there are three Lords Justice each expressing an opinion in his own language. Years later, it may go to the House of Lords. There will then be five speeches, each expressed in the language of a different noble and learned Lord. Your Lordships' House, sitting in a judicial capacity, a few years ago decided that it would no longer regard itself as bound by its own previous expressions of opinion; it can vary or reject them. So, on the score of certainty, I feel that one will not achieve certainty if one adopts what is, in effect, the Continental method.
I must say a word on behalf of Parliamentary Counsel. They do the most admirable work. The Report contains some examples of obscure drafting. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told us how many thousands of pages of legislation there now are.
1010
If one could not find example after example of obscure drafting in those thousands of pages it would be an incredible miracle. Of course there are cases of obscurity. Bearing in mind the enormous range of relationships that Parliamentary Counsel and Parliament—the Legislature—have to deal with in the enactments which get on to the Statute Book, it seems to me not extraordinary that there should be some examples of obscure drafting. It would be extraordinary if it were not possible to find heaps more examples. On the contrary, I think that the legislation is extremely well done.
May I give examples. We had recently the Community Land Act. Noble Lords on both sides of this House strongly disagreed as to the provisions of that Act. Some noble Lords do not like them, others do. We also had the Employment Protection Act, and the same applies to that Act. In 1971 we had a major constitutional Act—the Industrial Relations Act. There was the strongest disagreement in the other place, and in this House, about the effect of the provisions of that Act, now repealed.
But I try to think back on the discussions, and I think I am right in saying that there was very little complaint about any obscurity in those Acts. We could all understand them. There we had examples of Parliamentary Counsel having covered in legislation three vast fields of human relations in terms of the Employment Protection Act, the Industrial Relations Act and the Community Land Act. But I think I am right in saying that so far as the question of obscurity was concerned, those Acts remained comparatively uncriticised, either in another place or in your Lordships' House. In my respectful submission that does not seem to connote an obscure, turgid, unintelligible system of Statutes. In my opinion it connotes precisely the opposite.
May I take another example. We are to have, I suppose next year, the wealth tax. I have never disguised my opinion that it is a thoroughly bad tax, and the last vestige of a case for it has gone, now that we have the trasfer of capital tax. However, apparently we are to have this wealth tax, if it is passed by Parliament, and we will have to live with it. The Government, I believe perfectly

1011
rightly, published some months ago a Green Paper setting out the broad lines of possible approach to the construction of that tax. Since then a Committee has been sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Douglas Jay. I do not have the remotest idea as to what that committee is proposing to recommend, but I suppose that Mr. Jay and his colleagues have subjected the matter to a thorough examination. Already in the Press there are a number of arguments put forward, by letters and correspondence, complaining as to the possible effect of that tax. It is argued that it should not apply to the works of young artists. It is also argued that it should not apply generally to works of art. It should not apply, so it is argued, to what can be regarded as our national heritage. I suppose as the months draw nearer to that Act getting on the Statute Book the controversy about it will thicken and there will be argument after argument on the question as to what it should and should not have application.
No doubt the Chancellor will be ready to consider whether he can make exceptions, and whether the Act would operate oppressively, if it applied to all those suggested exceptions, and others that will, no doubt, be voiced. I am sure that he will consider whether or not he can make concessions. But what is bound to result is something of extreme complication. It will be utterly idle to expect that that Act can be framed in language which he that runs can read.
I have probably got the facts all wrong, but I recall something from the 1945 Parliament, and it was roughly like this. One of our Chancellors, listening to the Opposition in a debate on a Finance Bill, thought that the Opposition had a point on which he should make a concession. He asked me to look at this point with Parliamentary Counsel. Engaging in a transport of conceit—to which I hope I am not subject too often—I sat down and thought I would make a draft. I spent about four hours drafting about three lines. Next morning Parliamentary Counsel—I have an idea that it was Sir John Rowlatt and Mr. Peter Sée, both admirable public servants came to discuss it. They sat down very peacefully. I did not break to them the glad news that they would not have to work because
1012
somebody of my remarkable brilliance had already done it for them. They sat down very politely and said that the Chancellor's concession was quite easy to put into language. There were six situations to be covered. I am afraid that my draft did not cover any of those six—I had not thought of them—and so it was discreetly torn to pieces by me under the table, and it found a proper resting place in the wastepaper basket. That is typical of the type of task they have to deal with. Therefore I hope that one will not too easily embark on criticism as to confusion in Parliamentary drafting.
I ought to pay a tribute to the Statute Law Society. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner referred to the fact that I have been connected with it, and have had the privilege of being able to work with it and with Mr. Benyon. I should like to pay a tribute to that society's devotion and its learning. It was very anxious that the textual system of amendment should be preferred to the referential system, as the Report recommends, "so far as possible"—that is a big qualification. I slightly disagreed with Mr. Benyon when we discussed it among ourselves. The qualification, I think, is this. It is true that the ultimate user is a person whose interest must be taken very closely into account in matters of this kind. But it is also true that Parliament must not be obstructed in doing what is necessary in the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, read a passage from the Report—paragraph 1.10—saying that one trouble was that Governments passed too many Acts and that Members of Parliament asked too many questions. Nobody has had such a long and distinguished career as a Member of the other place and as an admirable constituency Member as has the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire. I can imagine that had he wanted to ask a question to protect his constituents he would not have hesitated for a moment. He would quite rightly have refused to hesitate. We all admired him, and still admire him, for the admirable work he did as a very experienced Member of the other place.
With regard to a textual system, let us consider the following situation. Members of another place, with all their

1013
responsibilities upon them, and working perhaps on 40 or 50 letters to their constituents, may hear the Division Bell ring. It is in the public interest that they should then know what they are voting about, so far as is possible. A textual amendment simply says that in such-and-such a clause of an Act passed 20 years ago the words "upside down" should read "inside out", or something of that sort. It does not tell them much. It is accepted by those who propose the textual system of amendment in preference to the referential system, that an explanatory memorandum of some kind is necessary. This makes it awfully difficult for Back-Bench Amendments to be dealt with if an explanatory memorandum has to be provided, and it makes it very difficult for manuscript Amendments to be dealt with if an explanatory memorandum has to be provided. Therefore there are limits—and very severe limts—as to what can be done by way of textual amendment.
A Member of Parliament, if he has a referential Amendment, has a general idea as to what he is voting about. While the interests of the ultimate user are of transcendent importance, so are the interests of the legislature. Busy Members of another place, and indeed busy noble Lords in this House, must know what they are voting on. It must be made not too difficult for them to find out as much as they can about the controversy in question, if they happen to be engaged on other matters when they hear the Division Bell ring. Subject to that I entirely agree with what is proposed.
I want to make this point. Legislation is for such different people. Some of it affects all of us. I was brought up on the Larceny Act 1916 (now superseded) and that contains what I always thought was a clear and comprehensive definition of theft:
"fraudulently and without a claim of right taking and carrying away with the intention permanently to deprive the owner".
I do not suppose that one in a thousand people whom one meets in the street would have had the faintest idea as to what is, or rather was, the definition of theft in the Larceny Act. They never look at the Act. My noble friend Lord Hale mentioned the Sale of Goods Act 1894—the same is true of this Act, although it affects everybody. But legislation of a more complicated character—
1014
for example, the Finance Acts—nearly always is for people who are professional experts, and they have time to sit and work it out with their expert advice. That is, after all, partly what they are for. They are lawyers, they are accountants, they are professional people of that sort; and it really is acceptable, I should have thought, that in their case a certain amount of complication which would require unravelling by them is permissible when in so many cases that complication is difficult, and indeed impossible, to avoid by the draftsman.
My Lords, I have spoken, I am afraid, for a quarter of an hour, which is longer than I intended, but I have done so simply to try to redress the balance a little and to tip it slightly in favour of licence to Parliamentary Counsel, and to say, in recognition of them, what wonderful service they render to us. How agonising it must be for them to sit in the box, either in the other place or in your Lordships' House, and listen to language which they have used and which is pellucidly plain to them, being expounded by, say, a Solicitor General—and some holders of that position (I speak of myself) are not always as effective as others (I speak of two others in this House)—who is unable to convince a rather doubtful other place or doubtful House of Lords that really the thing works perfectly well, when they, who have done the drafting and have sat up most of the night doing it, know perfectly well what it is meant to do and what it means. So, my Lords, I strike, I hope, a modest blow for them, and haveing done so I sit down.
6.51 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, the conscientiousness and the thoroughness of this Report are just what I would have expected from a Committee presided over by my right honourable friend Sir David Renton. This has been an admirable debate, at any rate up to this moment, and I greatly hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as well as the noble Baroness and the noble Duke who have spoken, have been gratified by the quality and the extent of the interest taken. I missed only one speech which, alas!, could not have been delivered, but had the Rules permitted us to be addressed this afternoon by the Clerk of Parliaments, who

1015
was a member of the Renton Committee, he might have made the best and most well-informed speech of all.
I am at this moment committing the indiscretion of getting in among the lawyers, as your Lordships will see if you look down the list of speakers. That is generally considered by the public to be a rash thing to do. My only excuse for doing it is because two or three years ago I had the honour to be Chairman of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of delegated legislation, and I think that the somewhat restricted terms of reference of the Renton Committee Report prevented it from bringing home to the reader how these two aspects of the subject intermesh. The words, "the preparation of legislation" should obviously cover both primary and secondary legislation, but the terms of reference did not extend to the latter, although I notice that in one or two places the Renton Committee made specific reference to recommendations of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation.
If I am to develop this theme, I shall have to go into some technical matters, and in all seriousness I would recommend any noble Lord who feels in need of refreshment to go and partake of it at this moment, because I shall have to be somewhat technical for the next few minutes and, so far as I can foresee, excruciatingly dull; but it has to be done. Two places where I note that the Renton Committee referred to the recommendations of the Committee over which I presided are on pages 69 and 96 of their Report. We gave—I think the relevance of this to the preparation of legislation will become clear as I speak—some study to the different varieties of control that are provided in Acts of Parliament, to enable Parliament to supervise Statutory Instruments which those Acts empower Ministers to make.
I think your Lordships will all recognise that there must be three categories of such control. We know that from experience. There are some Instruments which are subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament and which either do not cone into force or do not remain in force unless that approval is given within a specified period. Those are what we nowadays call the Affirmative Instruments. Then there are the
1016
Negative Instruments, Instruments which can be prayed against in either House. These are the Instruments which will be killed if disapproved by either House within a given time. Then there is another substantial category of Instrument—a category of which Parliament itself sees relatively little—and that is those Instruments which, by the Act, are made subject to neither disapproval nor approval. Indeed, they are Instruments which may not come before Parliament at all except that now the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has the duty to examine all of these for their form, though not for their merit. It would need a special Motion to enable Parliament to debate the merits of such Instruments.
We discovered by analysis and search that there were at least seven different varieties of provision for Parliamentary supervision and scrutiny of the merits of Statutory Instruments, and it seemed to us that not more than four of these were necessary and that the other three could be eliminated. This is all, I would submit, part of the great task which has today been referred to by many of your Lordships; the task of getting rid of unnecessary complication from the work of Parliament and gaining, wherever we can, as much simplicity as possible. The Committee on Delegated Legislation came to the conclusion that there were really needed only two varieties concerned with Affirmative Instruments, one with Negative Instruments and one with those Instruments which were not to be subject to Parliamentary control at all. That is a reduction from seven to four. This recommendation was not, so far as I can remember, objected to by any of the witnesses who came before us, and certainly not by the Leaders of both Houses, who also gave evidence. There seemed to be general agreement that, in future, the draftsmen should be instructed to use one of the four varieties of provision for supervision, which we specified, and to drop the other three. When I say "drop the other three", I do not mean that we thought Parliament should embark on the tremendous task of revising past legislation so as to bring all that into line, but we thought that the unnecessary varieties might be omitted in future.
What the noble and learned, Lord, Lord Gardiner, said about the widening

1017
of the powers of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills reminds me that we ventured to throw up a recommendation that the powers of the Joint Committee should be widened somewhat further in order that it might be enabled, in the process of consolidating past Acts of Parliament, to pursue this policy of elminating the unnecessary varieties of control. After all, the Reports of the Joint Committee are not final documents. Normally, each Bill is recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, and if the Whole House does not like this change it can say so. But I greatly hope that one day that idea will be taken up and that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills will have its powers enlarged in that way.
My Lords, I come now to another of these technicalities which crops up again in the Report of the Renton Committee. It is a bigger task for the draftsmen to draft provisions imposing what we call the affirmative method of control of Statutory Instruments than to draft the Negative Resolution procedure. This happens because in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 formulae are included which cover the procedures on Instruments which are subject to prayers, Negative Resolution procedure Instruments. If a draftsman is instructed to make provision in the Bill that certain Instruments which can be made under the Bill shall be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, then all that he has to do is to use a few words which will attract either Section 5 or Section 6 of the 1946 Act, and there it is. That is completely standardised. If, on the other hand, he is instructed to provide for supervision by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, that cannot be done in the same simple way. There is no standard provision of that nature in the 1946 Act and the draftsman has to set it out at length; it can come to considerable length. Of course there arc no vast differences between the provision in one Act and another in this respect; nevertheless, in non-essential parts of the drafting, differences occur and they may suggest that there is some difference in the control under these Acts. There is no difference. It is simply that there is freedom to use different words.
Perhaps at this point I had better try to reduce the technicalities by reading what the Joint Committee on Delegated
1018
Legislation said about this matter. It is set out, in words that I hope everybody will understand more easily than mine, in paragraph 76 of the Second Report from the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation in the Session 1972–73:
"Whereas the negative procedure is imposed by the use of a standard formula which attracts Sections 5 or 6 of the Statutory Instrument Act 1946, the affirmative procedure is in every case written out at considerable length in terms which in nonessentials tend to differ from Act to Act. There would be advantage in adopting standard formulae for the imposition of the affirmative procedure, as is done already for the negative procedure. This would require legislation."
I said, "in non-essential terms". May I give your Lordships an example of that? We made an analysis of the use in recent years of that variety of the Affirmative Resolution procedure Instrument which provides that the Instrument shall be laid after being made but shall not remain in force unless within a certain number of days, a specified period, both Houses have resolved to approve it. In the period we looked at, there were 16 cases where this variety was used. In 14 of them, the period was specified in the Act as 28 days—28 Sitting days according to the usual calculations. In the other two, the specified period was 40 days. These were cases of schemes for calf subsidy and schemes for farm capital grants. I think I can best express our view if I read what the Committee succinctly said about the difference in Paragraph 24 of their Report:
"The Departments concerned can offer no compelling reason for this difference. Neither can your Committee perceive any."
It is this sort of unnecessary variation that I feel sure it would help Parliament to be rid of. In this case, I am glad to say that the Renton Committee referred to the matter. No doubt conscious that they might be straying beyond their terms of reference, they did no more than to draw the attention of the Government to the recommendation which the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation had made.
Another matter to which the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation addressed themselves was to see whether they could draw up any reliable criteria for selecting which was the most appropriate form of Parliamentary control for a particular Instrument. When I say, "appropriate

1019
form", I mean, for example, whether the Instrument envisaged in a particular clause of a Bill should be subject to the Negative or the Affirmative Resolution procedure or to no Parliamentary procedure at all. We came to the conclusion that the normal control should be the Negative Resolution procedure, unless there was clear reason to the contrary. Any Instrument which a Minister was empowered by Act to make should be liable to be the subject of a prayer in either House. If the prayer against it was carried, it would either not come into operation or it would cease to be in force.
If, on the other hand, there were certain important features of the Instrument—and we attempted to list some of these—it should be subject to the affirmative control. If, on the other hand, it appeared to be a matter of little, almost nominal consequence, and there was no political controversy to it, there should be no need for any Parliamentary control other than the scrutiny of the form of the Instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Then we went a little further and recommended—I attach considerable importance to this myself—that there should be a section on delegated legislation in the Explanatory Memorandum which precedes every Bill. Your Lordships will know that already the Explanatory Memorandum is required to indicate what will be the financial consequences of the Bill and also what will be the effects of the Bill on manpower. Our recommendation was that there should be a third piece of information included in the Explanatory Memorandum; it should list all the delegated powers which the Bill proposed to grant to Ministers and should indicate, also, the category—that is, Affirmative Resolution procedure, Negative Resolution procedure or no control—into which the Bill proposed that the Instrument-making power should fall. Here, again, the Renton Committee picked this up and said that it would be, in their view, a convenience to Members of both Houses if this were done and they could see no objection to it. My Lords, those are the technicalities. My concern is that these questions of delegated legislation should be looked at by the Government at the same time as they
1020
look at the Renton Report, so that we do not do half a job but a whole job. I hope that that will be pressed on Governments, whatever their colour, by both Houses of Parliament.
Finally, my Lords, how is it that Ministers are expected to exert their influence towards greater clarity and simplicity in legislation? I can only tell your Lordships of my own habit. It was my practice, if presenting a Bill to Parliament, to read through the whole Bill myself. I believe that that was not at all a misuse of a Minister's time. Granted, I did not read the repeals Schedule (I left that to the lawyers) and other similar sections; but, in general, any passage that I did not understand reasonably easily I would mark. I would ask Parliamentary Counsel to come to see me and then go through it with them. On some occasions they persuaded me that I was being stupid. On others I was successful in persuading them that this was needlessly complicated and that they should have another shot at it.
I am sure that in many cases—I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will confirm this—obscure drafting results largely from the sheer pressure of time under which the draftsmen work. When draftsmen can talk to a Minister in his room and seek to explain to him what seems to him to be a difficult passage for the common man's understanding, the draftsmen having a little more time will find means of getting in clearer. My feeling—not that my mind is a particularly good criterion for these things—was that if I, who am supposed to have some knowledge of the background of the subject, could not understand it, what chance was there for the ordinary member of the public who lacked that background of knowledge?
I want to pay the highest tribute to Parliamentary draftsmen for all they do. I have had so many examples of their kindness, readiness to find time and extraordinarily accurate work. It is clarity and simplicity which we have to aim for, as indeed the Renton Committee said. I believe both Houses of Parliament need to keep up the momentum on these matters. That is one reason why I wanted to intervene in today's debate. These Reports which deal with matters which do not carry any votes with them can be set aside by Governments, as one

1021
well knows, unless there is sufficient Parliamentary pressure sustained to ensure that the Governments will take action.
7.12 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, your Lordships are discussing today a matter which is not merely one of academic importance to lawyers but of the gravest and most serious importance to the community as a whole. As your Lordships have heard from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Denning, the time of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and the Court of Appeal is largely occupied by cases involving the interpretation of Statutes. Indeed, in the criminal and civil courts up and down the country there must be hundreds of cases every week in which the wording of a Statute is in issue. It goes without saying that all those cases involve for the litigants expense, delay, frustration and maybe real hardship.
It also goes without saying that almost all of those cases have come to court because the drafting of the relevant Statute is open to query. I say "almost all of those cases" because in a small number of cases new and unanticipated circumstances have arisen which make it difficult to apply them to an existing Statute, and also a small number of cases arise where difficulty is experienced because Statutes have attempted to deal with topics that are simply not amenable to legislation. I have in mind particularly matters that relate to social attitudes, and to such Acts of Parliament as the Sex Discrimination Act, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the Race Relations Act, of which one approves entirely in principle but which, by their very nature, it is difficult to be sufficiently precise about to produce satisfactory legislation.
The great majority of cases arise because the drafting is inadequate. That in turn arises because inadequate consideration has been given to the Bill, both by the Parliamentary draftsmen and by the Members of both Houses of Parliament upon the passage of the Bill through its various stages. May I stress at once that I am referring to inadequate consideration and not in any way to incompetence. It is hardly necessary for me to associate myself—but of course I do—with the tributes which have been paid
1022
to the skill, care and diligence of Parliamentary draftsmen, nor indeed, with respect, to the care that is obviously taken by so many of your Lordships and Members of the other place when the opportunity arises to consider the drafting of a Bill in one of its various stages.
The real problem is the inadequate consideration which arises out of the sheer volume of legislation which is being produced. This is a theme which runs through many parts of the admirable Report of the Renton Committee. Something over 2,000 pages of new Statute law are being produced every year. It is essential, if we are to consider the question of improving the wording of our Statutes in the future, that we should consider for a moment the reason for this vast increase in legislation, to see whether something can he done to reduce it. This involves embarking for a moment on political considerations which of course have been rightly and properly eschewed by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Is not the real cause of our present troubles in this respect the pernicious doctrine of the mandate which has given rise to so much trouble in our Parliamentary democracy? There are many noble Lords here who have served on the Committees of political Parties that produce a Manifesto. The reality is (is it not?) that a rag-bag of miscellaneous resolutions from the Party conferences of the past few years is strung together; commitments are put in so that each sectional interest in that Party will remain satisfied and a Manifesto is thus produced. Having been produced, nobody reads it. I suggest fewer than 1 per cent. of the electorate ever trouble to read the document. When it is read nobody votes on it because I assume hardly anybody who votes in favour of a Party is in fact voting for all the items contained in the Manifesto.
We have an electoral system—and I do not want to turn this into a debate on electoral reform—under which a Government are elected with something under 40 per cent. of the votes of the electorate. They immediately regard themselves in those circumstances as not merely entitled but under an obligation to introduce the whole of the contents of their Manifesto at the earliest possible moment, irrespective of the circumstances in which the document came to be in

1023
existence, irrespective of the fact that conditions might well have changed since the document was produced and as a result many of the measures are totally irrelevant. I say this not in criticism of any one political Party or any one Government. I believe it is a criticism that applies to us all. The results of this doctrine are that legislation is produced in such volume that, first of all, it cannot be properly considered either by the draftsmen or the House of Parliament and, secondly, pressure is put on professional advisers, particularly accountants, who have to cope with an impossible problem presented by new legislation in each Finance Act. As a result of those pressures the processes of legislation do not run smoothly.
May I give three simple examples from recent history. Last Session the Industry Act was debated at length in your Lordships' House. On Committee stage, a number of Amendments were passed, some of them not in any partisan political spirit but intended to improve the operation of the Bill. These Amendments were never debated in the other place. Owing to the pressure of work there, the Amendments had to be taken under the guillotine. There was not one word of discussion or consideration given to them. The Children Act has already been referred to. Your Lordships will remember that right at the end of last Session we were presented with a typescript document which contained 300 Amendments. In effect, we were told they had to be passed within 24 hours, in the course of a debate of an hour or two, otherwise the whole Bill would be lost.
May I take a further example. Only last week there came a Bill that clearly had to be produced in haste in order to comply with our obligations under the European Economic Community, who wanted this matter made law by 1st January. This was a Bill to provide for drivers' ages in connection with road traffic. An intelligent 17-year-old lorry driver might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that if he acquired this Bill, which contains only four clauses, he would be able to find out whether it is possible for him to drive a medium-sized goods vehicle.
1024
He would find that Clause 1 begins in this way:
"Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act, 1972…is hereby repealed and Part III of that Act…shall, subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, have effect with the substitution for section 96…of the following…".
If he surmounted that and got as far as Clause 2, he would find that began in this way:
"In Part VI of the Transport Act, 1968…in section 103(1), for the definition of the international rules', there shall be substituted…".
Then follow some other words. He might have been as rash as I was and got down a copy of the 1968 Statutes and had a look at the Transport Act 1968. From start to finish it nowhere contains the words "the international rules", and in fact one has to go to an obscure subparagraph of a Schedule to the European Communities Act to find that in that Act the Transport Act of 1968 is amended—and it is that amendment which is referred to in the Bill being discussed last week.
To deal with this unsatisfactory situation the Renton Committee have made a number of useful proposals. I would venture, in a word, simply to support three of them. The first is that which has been mentioned already by the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, during this debate, namely, that the pace of consolidation should be increased. If I may say so, this would involve finding numerous replicas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because I venture to doubt whether it is fully appreciated what a vast amount of work he does as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. But that is a move which, given adequate staff to support it, might help to make our Statute Book rather more coherent.
Secondly, the Renton Committee refers to the possibility of Bills in draft form being submitted to organisations which are familiar with their substance in order that their views may be obtained, not on the merits of the Bill but on the possible holes which could be found there. I have in mind the catastrophic Road Safety Act which brought in the breathalyzer legislation, on which many of my friends have been living contentedly now for many years. I suspect that if that Act, in draft, had been sent for approval to

1025
magistrates' courts practitioners, and perhaps to magistrates themselves, and if they had been invited to look at it simply to see what possible defects could be found, then at least some of the possible flaws might have been found at that stage rather than in your Lordships' House in the Appellate Committee.
Thirdly, there is the recommendation, which again I would venture to endorse, that there must be a proper timetable, a schedule, for the various stages of Bills as they go through both Houses of Parliament, to ensure that time is available for proper consideration of the wording and the drafting of Bills in their final stages.
Fourthly, I come back to the matter with which I began, that the really crucial factor which would enable us to consider legislation properly in future and which would enable the Parliamentary draftsmen to devote to it the care and attention they would wish, is somehow to reduce the volume of that legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said in opening this debate that of course Ministers want to leave their mark on the Statute Book. I would hope that is an attitude which can be overcome. I look forward with hope—though, I am bound to say, perhaps with no great confidence—to the day when the gracious Speech will contain in substance only one sentence: "The Government will bring in no new legislation this Session. They propose to get on with the job of running the country."
7.25 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, from these Benches we join with other noble Lords in warmly thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing the subject of the Renton Report for debate in your Lordships' House and for giving us the opportunity to discuss a subject of immediate and pressing concern not only to legislators but to all members of the legal profession and—those people who are sometimes forgotten—to the citizens of this country, who are increasingly becoming the victims of excessive legislation and State interference into what up to recent times have been considered the private areas of their lives.
We have had today the benefit of what might be called the collective and individual wisdom and experience of
1026
many members of the Judiciary of our country. I know that those of us who are not practising lawyers nor have had the benefit of being judges, will have profited from this wisdom and experience, as well as those experienced legislators who have served in both Houses of Parliament and, of course, speak with considerable knowledge. Coming as I do towards the end of the debate, I am grateful for all that has been said, and I know that noble Lords will excuse me if I do not refer to all the many valuable points that have been made but instead concentrate on one or two aspects which we on these Benches consider to be important.
Of course, we warmly welcome the valuable Report itself, presented by Sir David Renton and his Committee, and we warmly congratulate them on this most useful document. We consider that it should become a guide to all those connected with the preparation of legislation both in the United Kingdom and abroad. I should like to see copies of this Report in universities and centres of legal study, where they can be read with considerable benefit, so that the Report could ultimately benefit the legislation not only of this country but of any other country.
There are justified criticisms of existing legislation contained in Chapter VI of the Report concerning language and its complexities, and over-elaboration and its inherent difficulties to the user—and here I would add not only to the professional user, but also again to what might be termed either the beneficiary or the victim. The structure and arrangement of the amendments and their various alternatives have all been considered and noble Lords have spoken on these matters.
We from these Benches strongly support the recommendations contained in the Report. In Chapter VII there is, quite rightly, criticism of the enormous amount of legislation which is coming on to the Statute Book. It was said that ten laws used to suffice, but now we have over 3,500 wholly or in part in force, excluding an ever-increasing number of Statutory Instruments and bye-laws of local authorities, public corporations and so on. It must be recalled that the Committee was appointed in May 1973 and they completed their work

1027
by May 1975, so that they had ended their labours before the enormous programme of 1975 had got under way. There is no doubt that in this country we have been subjected to what might be termed a revolution by legislation "within the last year, with consequent ill-digested, complicated and, to many, undesirable Bills being passed. They can have very serious consequences on the citizen, yet adequate time has not Peen given to debate these issues.
Members of your Lordships'House—and I do not seek to make a political point here—will remember that we have been subjected on more than one occasion to the necessity of discussing Bills which have come up the same morning from another place, having had new Amendments added to them. This has made the task of legislators in this House totally unreasonable, and, if this House is to fulfil its proper constitutional duty and function as a revising and amending Chamber, we must have a reasonable interval after legislation comes from another place. To Recommendation 105, relating to the timing of Bills, perhaps a proviso could be added, after the experience of recent months, that reasonable time should be allowed between the Third Reading in one House and consideration of the Bill in the other House. This would be of benefit to both our Houses, if we are to do a proper job.
In Chapter VIII, relative to manpower, the Report underlines the difficulties of recruiting suitable lawyers to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. It is quite clear from the work they do that the kind of recruit needed is one who has a very high standard of academic excellence as well as legal training, but that type of person is much more likely nowadays to be attracted to a career at the Bar or in a firm of solicitors than in the Civil Service. Therefore, not only must there be closer links between the legal Civil Service and the universities, but it may be—and I throw this out only as an idea, because I am not an expert in the affairs of the Civil Service—that the conditions of service, the promotional prospects and the narrow career structure within the Parliamentary Counsel's Office should be looked into, and possibly made more attractive for young people today. I suspect that the career structure within the
1028
Parliamentary Counsel's Office must be narrow, because of the nature of its work.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, very rightly, mentioned the question of training, which I also agree is absolutely essential if the proper kind of person is to be attracted to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, and he has undoubtedly played a great role in encouraging the training of counsel for this work. Another point is that going to the Bar, from where many of these counsel are drawn, is a very expensive process. Without suggesting that there should be any further public expenditure, because I know that this is a subject on which none of us is now allowed to make any recommendations whatsoever, it might be suggested that really bright and intelligent students from university, who wish eventually to go into the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, should at least be given a loan or encouraged in some way to overcome the financial difficulties of legal training. This is merely a proposal by the way, in order to make some positive contribution to the very great difficulties which our Parliamentary Counsel are clearly undergoing with their very heavy work-load.
There is one aspect of the Report to which I believe no noble Lord has referred; that is, the distinction made in the approaches to legislation by British Common Law traditions and Continental codified systems. This emphasises the tendency of Western European countries to state general principles in clear and comparatively simple terms, while British Statutes tend to place the emphasis on certainty as opposed to simplicity and clarity, with consequent inclusion of detail. To my mind, it is not possible to consider the respective merits of the different forms and substance of Statutes, without considering the very different legal systems which may protect the citizen from abuse of power by the Executive or by administrative authorities.
For example, Germany has a legal Constitution which, to some extent, can control the interpretation of a Statute and it also has a supreme administrative court available for the redress of grievances. As is well known, France has a conseil d'Etat, which can exert considerable control over draft legislation and which has its own case law. If we were to simplify our Statutes and merely have them as

1029
guidelines, there would be very little protection for the citizen. If general principles only are to be stated, or if, at least, this is to be regarded as an ideal system, will the laws governing interpretation by the Judiciary also be widened? The use of travaux préparatoire is a common feature of Continental systems, so that the intention of the Legislature can be ascertained by the reading of these preliminary and official reports.
This may or may not be desirable in all British courts, from magistrates' courts upwards, in view of the different types of training and career structure in Britain compared with Continental judicial systems; but wide general powers of drafting can result in grave consequences for the citizen. We have had a recent example in Davmond v. South West Water Authority; and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to Section 30(1) of the Water Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, commented that he could understand the advantage of having a flexible power, but it remained surprising that Parliament could have passed so vague a provision. I quote from The Times Law Report of 3rd December 1975. Of course, there were serious financial consequences as a result of this very widely drafted power being given to a water authority. So that, while agreeing with the desirability of simpler and clearer Statutes, these should not be introduced without adequate, speedy and readily available safeguards for the individual who may be the victim of administrative abuse. Simplicity and clarity may be bought at the price of the protection of the basic rights of the individual.
Again, if Statutes are to be drafted with the exclusion of detail, it is not so much the Judiciary of whom I should be afraid, as is perhaps indicated in paragraph 19.14, but the Executive who would have immense individual powers exercisable through Statutory Instruments, Circulars, Directives and notices. This point has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who has gone into this matter with great thoroughness and in detail. In fact, we have a case in point; that is, that of Congreve v. Jenkins. That was a question of whether or not there was an abuse of powers given in the
1030
relevant Act. Both of the cases which I have cited have left Parliament open to the attack—justifiably, in my view—that too much legislation is being passed through the Parliamentary machine without sufficient expert attention being given to it by Parliamentarians.
The next chapter to which I wish to refer very briefly—because I support absolutely the recommendations made and because it has already been referred to by many noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—is in support of further consolidation of legislation. If the noble and learned Lord would only go out to dinner once more and make another after-dinner speech, perhaps we should have even further and better and quicker improvements, because there was obviously a most desirable result of the after-dinner speech to which he referred.
With regard to explanatory memoranda, to which reference is made in Chapter XV—and this is almost the only sentence with which I do not find myself entirely in agreement with Sir David Renton and his Committee—paragraph 15.17 states:
"The practice of Government departments with regard to: post-legislative explanatory material is well established and appears to serve its purpose adequately."
With respect, that could have been written only by a lawyer, because anybody who has been concerned with social work and has had to deal with social welfare legislation, supplementary benefits and family income supplement, where so much depends upon the individual making an application for benefit, knows that there is no explanatory material available and any which used to be in the post offices could have been understood only by a Chancery lawyer. I believe that the Department of Health and Social Security have recently made great efforts to make their benefit schemes more clear, and they have at least put up notices in places where people who need these benefits are able to read them. But I suggest that paragraph 15.17 is slightly over-optimistic and rather overstates its case.
I am very much in favour of doing by computer anything which saves one's own hand. As many noble Lords know, the Celex system is already working in the institutions of the European Community.

1031
Already there is one retrieval system in Brussels and another in Luxembourg. Much of the Community law has already been analysed and programmed on to it, including a certain amount of case law. Therefore, I hope that any system which is to be programmed on to computers in this country will be co-ordinated with Celex because it will be used in conjunction with Community law. It would be beneficial for those whose responsibility it is to look into this retrieval system also to study the systems which have been set up in Sweden and Italy which are already, apparently, working with a certain amount of success.
A great deal has been said about scrutiny. During the debate in another place it was suggested that consideration should be given to the publication of Bills for comment and scrutiny before they are finally published in their draft form after First Reading. I have heard no comment this evening with regard to the way that this is dealt with in the European Parliament—the link between the European Commission and the Committee Members of the European Parliament who receive a draft Directive with an explanatory memorandum and are able to discuss the import of the Bill with the Commissioner and his legal and specialist assistants who can then explain what is meant by the draft Directive and its intentions. A certain amount of political discussion inevitably enters into the discussions. Nevertheless, whether you are in agreement or disagreement with the draft Directive you have a very early opportunity to discuss the difficulties with both the Commission and the people who are responsible for drafting it. Therefore, I support very strongly the recommendation that there should be some system whereby Parliamentarians could discuss non-controversial Bills of great complexity with the Civil Service and the Minister responsible. It would result in the better understanding and easier passage of such Bills through both Houses.
The analysis of the treatment of Scottish legislation provides ample reasons why Scottish people are dissatisfied with the Westminster Parliament. I know that noble Lords will join me in expressing our gratitude to my noble friend the Duke of Atholl for having given us the benefit of his experience in serving on this Com
1032
mittee. I should add that we are grateful to have him here tonight as, indeed, we are grateful for the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. Both of them have spoken with what might be called, "their feet on the ground." Whether the noble Duke spoke as a man in the street and whether the noble Baroness spoke as a woman in the street, 1 do not know, but certainly they have made a great contribution to the debate and have given us the benefit of their experience of sitting on this Committee
With regard to Anglo-Scottish legislation the comments in this Report are certainly not unjustified regarding the time to be given and the attention needed to draft such legislation, in particular where there is a difference in terminology and law. The Report sets out the choice before Parliament both as to volume and as to simplicity and clarity. The Government are asked to give their views on the choice which will have to be made if the Legislature and the legislation for which it is responsible are to retain the respect of the citizens of this country.
We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having indicated in the second half of his speech the areas where he and his colleagues are in agreement with the recommendations. Certainly we hope to hear more from him this evening, and perhaps later when the debate has been considered and the noble and learned Lord is in a position to give us the final decision of the Government on this Report. The Report was presented to Parliament in May of this year, but the spate of legislation which has followed since that month does not indicate that any heed has been paid by the Government to this valuable document, which is an example of the lucidity, clarity and precision which we are hoping will be incorporated in our future Statute Law.
We from these Benches should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for having given us the opportunity to discuss and debate this matter and to draw the attention of the Government to its contents. The Government are, therefore, urged to take note of the Report, to consider its recommendations and to take appropriate and speedy action in acceptance of the conclusion of the Renton Committee;

1033
that is, that both Government and Parliament have a clear responsibility for the condition of the Statute Book.
7.45 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House and with the encouragement of the noble Baroness, I should like to make a few observations about some of the matters which have been raised that come within the ambit of the responsibility of the Government. Before I do so, may I assure noble Lords that just as the Government will consider with very great care—and, indeed, approbation in many cases—the recommendations of the Renton Committee, some of which we are already, as I indicated in my speech, putting into effect, so also shall we consider most carefully the suggestions which have emanated in this debate and the comments which have been made on those recommendations.
My noble friend Lord Hale agreed that the problems we have been discussing are not easy. As he has pointed out, we face a difficult phase of expanding legislation, and the problems to which it gives rise, at a time when our very constitution is like a bubbling vat with all kinds of yeasts being added to it—domestic yeast in the field of devolution, our involvement in the EEC, with all the problems relating to adjustment to legislation emanating from there, and the relationship between the jurisdictions of our country and those of the EEC. Therefore, it is more important than ever at this moment in our history that we should get our legislative processes and our legislation as right as we can.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, asked me whether or not it would be desirable to have a Scottish lawyer on the Government Benches in your Lordships House. Of course, I should welcome greatly such an acquisition, but unfortunately there are other demands upon the Ministerial establishment, by which I mean the number of Ministers who are available in Government. However, it may well be that the Prime Minister will consider the matter. So far as I personally am concerned, the "pursuit of the pursuers", and other complex characters in the law of Scotland, always fills me with trepidation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, asked whether
1034
in the interpretation of Acts of Parliament in the courts use could be made of specific reports referring to the Statute in question, and the noble Baroness referred to the possibility of our being relaxed hitherto about references to trauma preparatoire as part of our procedures. As these are eminently matters which we shall have to consider when dealing with the approach to the new legislation on interpretation of Statutes, we shall certainly take on board these interesting suggestions.
Turning to the matter of scrutiny to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, referred, he will recollect that Recommendations 106 and 107 of the Report are important. The Parliamentary Committee which I suggested would be set up to deal with these proposals will no doubt consider carefully those recommendations and the more extended proposal of the noble and learned Lord. Like others he gave us some illustrations of the apparent absurdity of some of our legal provisions, and he referred in particular to the case of the Act relating to pollution in navigable waters and whether in the context of a section of that Act containing the words:
"The company owning, or the captain of the ship"—
the word "or" could be translated as "and" for the purposes of the Act. I was endeavouring to persuade their Lordships, sitting judicially, that that was so. I failed to carry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, with me on that occasion, but, happily, I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, came to my side.
The point I wanted to come to was that this is not a new question. It arose in the interpretation f Magna Carta, in the famous Chapter 39, as to whether "vel" meant "and" or "or" or "and/or". That was a matter of interesting comment at the time of Cooke and the rest of them in the 17th century. So there is nothing new in the dilemma of language, whether it is in Latin or in English, or even conceivably in the laws of Hywel Dda in Welsh.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner raised some questions to which, like all of his questions, there are no easy answers. Responsibility for Parliamentary Counsel and for the Office of

1035
Parliamentary Counsel is manifestly a matter within the responsibility of the Prime Minister in determining what the range of duties of Ministers should be, but I will certainly see that the words of my noble and learned friend are drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister.
The question of manning and the training of Parliamentary Counsel has been referred to many times in the course of the debate, and of course they are both important matters. As the Renton Report indicates, and as I indicated in my speech, the highly specialised nature of the work of Parliamentary Counsel puts severe limitations on the scope for finding experienced professionals to join the office. Obviously, people of first-class ability are required, and experience has shown that it is best to look for young people with really good honours degrees, and to place rather less emphasis on their length of service in either branch of the legal profession. On joining they serve a long period of apprenticeship and, as the Report has told us, it is generally accepted that it takes about 10 years before a draftsman can handle a big Bill under pressure.
It is this long period of learning the job which makes any effective, and certainly easy, extension of a body of draftsmen very difficult, and indeed a slow business. But we have had some success recently in acquiring the services of two more professional staff to join full-time. Vacancies are advertised and competitions held periodically by the Civil Service Commission, and a competition is planned for 1976. In addition, I assure the House that contacts are being maintained in the universities and in other potentially fruitful recruiting areas. I can give the House this word of comfort, that to judge from the number of inquiries that have been received in recent months about the possibilities of a career in the office, the prospects for 1976 are reasonably promising.
As to training, the Renton Report pointed out that the establishment of a postgraduate course in legislative drafting should reduce both the period of apprenticeship for new recruits and the training load on senior draftsmen. First, Parliamentary Counsel has for some time been considering a number of possibili
1036
ties in this respect, and I understand it is hoped that within the Parliamentary Counsel Office there will be training for junior members when staff allows and makes possible the release of a senior for that purpose. That is the eternal problem. At any rate it is a matter which is very much in mind, and I hope that at least that information will give some assurance to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner.
He may, however, be interested to know, in relation to his assertion (if I may put it in that most friendly way) that he knows of no democracy where control of Parliamentary draftsmen is not exercised by the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General, that apparently is not so in the United States of America, where each Federal Government Department does its own drafting and Congress has a service for Private Members. Whether any lesson can be drawn from that by way of example or difference I do not know, but, as the noble and learned Lord will imagine, I have not been unsympathetic to the view he has expressed as to where responsibility might lie ministerially in this field. I cannot say more, nor dare I say more than that at this stage.
I will not enter into the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, about full stops and shorter sentences, and the differences between Sir David Renton and himself I must leave for them in due course to sort out. This is yet another example of the many-sidedness of truth, especially when the trust is considered in relation to drafting practices. At any rate I approve of Recommendation (16) in the Committee's Report.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, through having to sit judicially himself, did not have the advantage of listening to the early part of the debate, but lest he might be interested to read what was said he might care to know that in recent legislation, and indeed earlier, we have been using examples to illustrate what Parliament intends in a Bill and what the Bill means. I have recently introduced into the House two Bills which do the very thing which he commends; namely, the Limitation Act 1975 and also the Children Act, and I would draw his attention to Recommendation (9) in the Report, with which I agree.

1037
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for the tribute he has paid to Parliamentary draftsmen. Indeed, that has been universally echoed throughout this debate, and it was cheering to receive recognition from at least one noble Lord of the fact that Government too have their duties, just as they have their problems. The Government are examining carefully the Report of the Committee on Statutory Instruments presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I certainly take note of the importance he attaches to the examination of the problem of delegated legislation at the time when the problems and the matters raised in the Renton Report are being considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has emphasised the importance of consultation when Government are preparing legislation with bodies outside which may be both informed and interested. I entirely agree with that emphasis. Indeed, part of the success and value of the Reports of the Law Commission is due to the fact that the Commission takes very great care to embark upon a wide process of consultation. As to explanatory material, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to the need for this. So far as social security legislation is concerned, a vast amount of simple, explanatory material has been issued, although I am bound to say from my recollection as a Member of Parliament holding a "surgery", this aspect of explaining to constituents letters emanating from the Department of Health and Social Security was always one of the most agonising moments during the so-called "surgery". Whether "surgeries" did any good or not, I do not know. If I may be permitted to reminisce, I remember Winston Churchill in the House of Commons on one impatient occasion referring to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Dalton, and saying, "He calls himself a doctor, but I have yet to hear of any patient he has ever cured". That is totally irrelevant to what I have said, but I am grateful for the debate that has taken place. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing the debate, and finally, and yet again. I am grateful to Sir David Renton for the excellent quality of the Report he and his Committee produced.
8.2 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, your Lordships have been privileged to have a reply to this debate from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and that, I hope, will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not reply at all to the points raised in the debate. But I cannot allow the occasion to go by without expressing my gratitude for the most notable contributions that have been made to this debate by your Lordships. I must also be allowed to thank your Lordships for the very kind and generous personal references to myself—some, fortunately for me, all too flattering, which I am able to discount on the grounds of long companionship and friendship.
My Lords, my Motion was to draw attention to the Renton Report, and to move for Papers. With regard to drawing attention to the Renton Report, the debate has evoked a variety of experience, a fertility of suggestion and a profundity of political wisdom, which will undoubtedly further the cause that has animated all your Lordships today. As for the Motion for Papers, nobody has been able to explain to me what Papers I should get if the Motion were carried. I have got more papers already than I can manage and, therefore, I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DAVID SALOMONS SCIENCE THEATRE
8.4 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what use is being made by the National Health Service of the David Salomons Science Theatre and its organ at Southborough in Kent, and whether this theatre might appropriately be used to house the British Piano Museum. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a regrettably late hour to embark on asking a Question which I hope will prove to be of slightly wider interest than might be deduced from the wording of the Question on the Order Paper. May I start by saying that I recognise this is no time to be adding to the tribulations of the Health Service; that is certainly not the purpose of this Question. Indeed, I

1039
intend to suggest that there are ways by which they might make some modest economies. The Question I want to ask is whether public money is being squandered, a national asset damaged and an opportunity lost, and I hope to suggest that there is, as the Prayer Book puts it, "a happy issue out of our afflictions".
Perhaps I may begin with a brief look at the origin of the rather strangely named Science Theatre at Broomhill House near Southborough in Kent. The building was erected by Sir David Salomons, who inherited his baronetcy from his uncle who had the distinction of being the first Jewish Lord Mayor of London and the first Jewish Member of Parliament. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Jord Janner, is on the list of speakers this evening; he may be referring to this point. I understand that the bench on which this distinguished man sat during a very brief initial visit to the House of Commons is still in Broomhill House at the present time.
David Salomons described himself by saying, "I was born a mechanic". He must have been an exceptionally good mechanic, and was quite a bit more than that, because in 1896 he designed and had built his Science Theatre, which was not only fully equipped with the unusual feature at that time of a complete electric lighting system, of his own design, but powered by a specially installed generator, also of his own design; he had, too, in this Theatre, stage equipment which was said to rival the Drury Lane of the time. Then in 1914 he had installed in this Theatre a magnificent Welte reproducing organ—and a very fine instrument it is indeed. The company which makes these organs unfortunately was destroyed by bombs during the Second World War, thus leaving this as the largest surviving organ of its type anywhere. I am not relying on my own personal judgment of this Theatre, but I call in aid a letter from Sir Hugh Casson in March this year. Sir High said:
"The Science Theatre seems to me to be an unusual room of outstanding interest, not only in the consistency and quality and condition of interior finishes, but in its extraordinary collection of fixtures—a fine organ, complete period scenery and theatrical machinery, and not least a virtually untouched electrical power and light system which must be one of the earliest known
1040
of this country. It seems to me essential that it should all be preserved as intact as possible, i.e., no false ceiling, wall linings, etc."
In a letter I received from Sir Hugh this morning he reiterated this view. He says:
"I regard the Victorian Theatre at this house as of the greatest interest scientifically and it seems to me tragic that it should be allowed to lie abandoned or be converted into a lecture hall."
That is the opinion of Sir Hugh Casson.
Sir David died in the 1920s. In 1937 his daughter made over the estate to the people of Kent, subject to a covenant that it should be used
"as a technical institute, college, library, museum, memorial hall, institute of scientific research or public park, or as a convalescent home or hospital".
The covenant went on to produce a condition that two rooms of the main house, the memento rooms, should be open to the public on at least three days a week. There were various other controlling features of that kind.
The Kent County Council accordingly took the building over and used it as a convalescent home throughout the Second World War, and as such it was taken over by the Ministry of Health in 1946 when the National Health Service was founded. The convalescent home was then closed in 1971,since the Department no longer needed it for that purpose. It was then announced that it would be converted for use as a training centre for cooks. In fact the house has now been converted for use as a training centre for the 60.000 administrative staff for the South-East Thames Regional Health Service. At this point I think I should emphasise that while the Science Theatre and the ancillary buildings adjoin the house, they are in fact, or can be, completely separated from it; so you can regard them as two quite separate entities if you wish; or equally you can regard them as one entity. But for this purpose I distinguish between these two sets of buildings.
As I understand it, the plans for the conversion of the Science Theatre itself are more or less in abeyance on the grounds of cost. Unfortunately, it seems that already some of the interesting original electrical fittings and some of the scenery have been taken down, but I think it is largely thanks to the attention which has been called to the Science

1041
Theatre by outside interests that these fittings have, I understand, been stored. The first question I should like to ask the noble Lord this evening is: can he please give us an unqualified assurance that these fittings will be carefully stored and looked after? I have been astonished by the number of letters that I have had since putting down this Question, many of them protesting at what has already been done in the Theatre and hoping that nothing further will be allowed to proceed in the way of what they describe as desecration. It is only fair to say that I understand that a great deal of care has been taken in looking after these fittings and fixtures since their importance was called to the attention of the Department. The kind of assurance that we are seeking is the first minimum that is needed to alleviate a considerable amount of local worry and national misgiving which has been expressed to me.
A number of other questions arise. Bearing in mind that this building is a separate entity, is it really necessary to the training centre? With the best will in the world, it is hard to avoid the feeling that we have here a classic case of Parkinson's law in operation. The building was there, so, naturally, the authority in possession of it looked around to find a justification for using it. That is fine up to that point, but of course that usually means keeping it to themselves. In fairness again, I think perhaps this view has undergone some modification in recent months since something of a local outcry has been raised. But I think it is right to ask how much will it cost the authority to adopt the Theatre, how much will it cost to run the Theatre, and how often will it be used thereafter? And do they really need a theatre that seats 200 people when they already have within the main building a room capable of seating 130 people? if all these questions are answered satisfactorily, will the building be available for use by the public? It has been suggested to me that it might he used for some of the functions which the Health Service currently undertake at their premises in Croydon, but I do not really believe that they would seek to justify having the Theatre for a purpose of this kind.
I would ask another question. Would not the use of this building as a museum
1042
or for some other public purpose tie in well with the obligation to open the two rooms in the house to the public under the covenant? I can readily see that this is something of a nuisance, but it is something of a nuisance which already exists; these rooms have to be opened.
Having asked these rather specific questions, I am motivated to ask one or two rather more wide-ranging ones of a more fundamental nature. I speak as a devotee of the notion of the need for training to improve the effectiveness and administrative efficiency of almost any service, and perhaps the Health Service in particular. But one cannot help wondering whether this whole establishment will really be cost effective. Do we really need an establishment on this scale for the South-East Regional Authority, which has 60,000 people? How many other regions feel the requirement for facilities of the same sort? My understanding is that at least some of the regions prefer to use universities for this purpose. in short, I hope it is not unfair to ask whether the South-East Thames region have Rolls-Royce ideas on a Ford income. That is the present use, the first half of the Question.
Now may I turn to the Piano Museum itself. At the present time, there is a unique collection of reproducing pianos and other musical instruments housed in Brentford in a disused church with a leaking roof. This collection is the life's work of its founder Mr. Frank Holland, whose great contribution has been to restore all his instruments to working order and use them for giving concerts to the public. At risk of personalising this debate unduly, I would say that Mr. Holland is one of those admirable individuals of remarkable single-mindedness of purpose. I have no doubt that this particular characteristic probably makes him a thorn in the side of bureaucrats; I dare say there is a file in a number of Ministries in this country with large red stickers on them saying: "If Mr. Holland writes to you, for goodness sake watch out because you are probably in trouble".
It is precisely these kind of people who succeed in achieving the difficult and indeed the well nigh impossible. So let us not be blinded by the single-mindedness of one individual. I can only say that even in these days of the remarkable hi-fi reproductions, it is to me a very moving

1043
experience to go into this Museum—which, frankly, I can only describe as scruffy at the present time, for reasons not anything to do with the efforts of the curator—and listen to actual instruments playing actual performances by the great names of the day, names like Rachmaninoff and Rubinstein, on the very instrument itself. The link with the Science Theatre came about because Mr. Holland tracked down the magnificent and unique Welte organ which he found in the back of the Theatre complete with its player rolls.
I suggest that the Piano Museum's first claim to special consideration in connection with the Science Theatre is the fact that they called public attention to it, and this probably prevented irreparable desecration of a building which is part of our national heritage. Secondly, the Museum has the facilities and the intention to restore this magnificent organ as part of its exhibition and give public performances on it. Indeed, it intends to go further if it can get into this building, and would like to restore and put into use the historic electrical installation. Above all, the Museum desperately needs a home with a tight roof and it is indeed hard to imagine a more appropriate building than this.
I should like to go further and suggest that such a use would be much more closely in line with the wishes of the family who so generously gave the building to the people of Kent in the first place. In this connection I have had letters from a large number of descendents of Sir David Salomons writing enthusiastically on this very point. They are supported by the South-East Regional Arts Association, the Southborough Society, the Museums Association, a whole list of supporters who have expressed an interest in this project. I am not suggesting that the health authority was ultra vires in taking over the building, but I am certainly suggesting that there seems a strong moral case in terms of fulfilling the wishes of the original donor for an enterprise of this kind.
The next question to ask is: Supposing the Piano Museum went to the Science Theatre, how would it be supported? The founder of the Museum is completely confident that he could support his collection and maintain this fascinating build-
1044
ing by means of the contributions from visitors and the income from the concerts which they could give with the greatly improved museum facilities as compared with the disused church. I have already explained that it is my understanding that they enjoy a great deal of local support. Surely an outcome of this kind would suit the health authority in their present straitened circumstances. They would be relieved of the obligation to look after the Theatre, and indeed if the public were admitted frequently to the grounds around the house—there seems no good reason why they should not be—it would surely be reasonable for the health authority to look for some support from the local authority in looking after what would be a local amenity. This is what led me at the outset to suggest that there appears to be a happy solution which could suit everyone.
I have tried to be fair in putting the case which lay behind this Question. I recognise and freely admit to an emotional and perhaps a romantic bias in the outcome which I should like to see. Again, if I may call in aid Sir Hugh Casson's letter this morning:
"I am convinced of the uniqueness of Mr. Holland's collection, and I am glad that you also share my confidence in his persistent energy in trying to find a new home for it."
The question is, does the National Health Service need this historic building, because many people feel that it is a pity that in a time of national stringency public money is being used to alter to its detriment a building which they feel should be preserved and made available to the public according to the manifest wishes of the benefactor who gave it to the people of Kent. In the meantime, there is waiting in the wings, if I may put it that way, a potential occupant and a curator whose valuable collection is looking for a good home. I have asked a number of questions, and I shall look forward to hearing what the noble Lord can tell us.
8.27 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, although it is hardly necessary to add anything in view of the full, fascinating and fair—I thought perhaps almost more than fair—statement that my noble friend Lord Strathcona has just given us of what I regard as the quite deplorable history of this matter. The terms of the

1045
Trust Deed under which Broomhill is held are perfectly clear. My noble friend gave them to the House. I will repeat them because I think they are of extreme importance. It is held in trust for the people of Kent to be used
"as a technical institute, college, library, museum, memorial hall, institute for scientific research, or public park, or as a convalescent home or hospital."
and not for any other purpose.
Of course, until 1971 Broomhill was used at first by the Kent County Council and then, on the institution of the National Health Service, by the Ministry of Health as a convalescent home. When however, the convalescent home was closed in 1971, the Department of Health, with what I am afraid I can only call a cynical disregard of the terms of the Trust, instead of returning it to the Kent County Council, as they should have done, so that it might be used in accordance with the terms of the Trust, proposed to convert Broomhill into a conference or training centre for hospital cooks: nothing to do with the terms of the Trust. Attempts at various levels to get the Regional Health Authority—I know what difficulties Regional Health Authorities can be faced with; I have been chairman of a Regional Hospital Board—to get them to release it for the specified purposes have so far failed.
I am concerned today not with the mansion or the estate, and I can well understand that it might not be easy to make arrangements for their use in accordance with the strict terms of the Trust. I do not know what attempts may have been made to consider that. I am concerned today only with the Science Theatre built by Sir David Salomons in 1896 for the specific purpose of housing a comprehensive collection of theatrical, electrical and projection equipment, a purpose for which it is, as I am advised, almost ideally suited.
The collection has been neglected for 40 years. The stage scenery and the highly interesting electrical theatrical thunder machine has gone, destroyed by neglect and a lack of understanding, but the remarkable Welte reproducing pipe organ, installed in 1914, much the finest if not the only surviving specimen of its kind—an organ of extreme historical and musical interest—survives, though in a dirty and neglected state. Proposals by
1046
the Regional Health Authority to incarcerate this remarkable object by bricking it in—it is difficult to believe that such proposals could seriously have been put forward—have been defeated. Many of the unique fittings have been rescued from the rubbish dump to which vandals—I suppose one can use that term—had consigned them. I understand that it could be renovated without great difficulty.
Whatever may be the future of the mansion, it really cannot be doubted or disputed that the Science Theatre, with its wonderful and historic organ, should be returned to the use for which it was intended and for which the Trust provides. I am advised that there would be no difficulty in dividing it from the mansion and providing a separate access. It is ideally situated, by its design and its whole history, to be used to house the musical Museum, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, referred, at present housed in a church at Brentford which is about to be demolished; the museum is willing and anxious to go to the Science Theatre at Broomhill. I profoundly hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Broomhill Science Museum will be made available for that purpose.
8.32 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this late hour, particularly in view of the manner in which the case has been presented, which is not unusual, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. By this time the Minister will appreciate that there is a strong case for the appeal that has been made to him tonight. I am placed in a somewhat different position from perhaps any other Member of this House or, for that matter, of another place. Sir David Salomons, whose memory is well worth preserving in a substantial way—and this should weigh very heavily in favour of the suggestion that has been made tonight—was the first Jewish Lord Mayor of London. He played a very prominent part in the campaign to abolish the last Jewish disabilities. He was elected sheriff and later alderman on special legislation being passed. I speak as a Jew, which perhaps reflects the respect I feel in a personal capacity for this predecessor of mine.

1047
He was elected to Parliament in 1851 and at that time the Oath which a Member had to take could not be taken by a conforming Jew; there were, of course, Jews in Parliament before that date—Disraeli and others—but I am speaking tonight about members of the Jewish faith and nation who would not take an Oath which was inconsistent with their beliefs. He sat in the House, being the first Jew to sit in Parliament, and he voted, but unhappily he had to withdraw and a heavy fine was inflicted on him for having sat in the House and voted. In 1858 an Amendment to the law was passed enabling Jews to sit in Parliament; he was re-elected in 1859 and sat until the day of his death as a Member of Parliament, being particularly interested in social problems and Jewish welfare. Had it not been for his activities, it is quite possible that neither I nor any other Jewish person would have been able to come into either House, and therefore I have a very high regard for this predecessor of mine.
This high regard is not only in Parliamentary terms. It goes beyond that because David Salomons was active on the Jewish Board of Deputies, which is the representative body of Jewry in this country. He was president of that body on two occasions—having taken the place of Sir Moses Montefiore, whose name is very well known—and I had the privilege of serving for nine years as president of that Board and I have been on it for some 50 years. Your Lordships will, therefore, appreciate my personal interest in this man, who is well remembered, not only in this country but throughout the world, as a pioneer of Jewish relief from the difficulties that prevailed before he stepped into the scene. It is true that Lionel Rothschild had been elected earlier. but he would not take his seat in the House and instead stood at the Bar.
This Trust Deed is of interest to me and I hope that my noble friend will give it considerable weight in his consideration of this matter. Although this point has been raised already, it is interesting to note that that Trust Deed was made between one of the relatives of Sir David and—being a party to the deed—the Board of Guardians and
1048
Trustees for the Relief of the Jewish Poor. Again, I must declare an interest, in that although that body is now known as the Jewish Welfare Board, it was situated in the first constituency which 1 had the honour to represent as a Member of Parliament; that is, White chapel and St. George's, which is not there now but which was at that time. I appeal to my noble friend not easily to ignore this Trust Deed. Whatever may be the result of tonight's debate, I hope he will take into consideration the fact that whatever other use these magnificent premises are put to—after all, they were recognised then as being, whatever term was used, an ancient monument and stand as such to this day—they should be used, partly anyway, for the purposes for which the Trust called on them to be used. I am a lawyer and we lawyers understand that when a trust is formed, our clients are anxious to see that provision is made to ensure that a place like this is used in the manner in which they would desire it to be used.
There are the relatives—and I believe that this should be taken into consideration—who are very concerned about what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, referred to letters he had received and he sent me a copy of one—or indeed it may be the original. I think it would be useful to place on record the kind of thing which has been said. I shall just quote therefore from one or two:
"Yesterday my husband and I took a walk to look at the 'Salomons' House' in Broomhill. We were appalled at the desecration that is taking place. Having worked many years for the NHS the callousness and insensitivity of such a scheme does not surprise me. How can such an amount of money be spent on destroying something belonging to Kent residents? My son was born here and owns part of that heritage. I see you are asking a question re 'the house' on Wednesday."
Your Lordships will see that the letter speaks in strong terms, much stronger terms than any of us has used because we have some respect for the Minister and we appreciate the difficulties which the Ministry encounters. I suppose we shall have an answer from the Minister as I am sure he is a reasonable person and, if it does not entirely satisfy us, perhaps it will show that there is a need for what he is asking. I hope he will take into consideration what we are saving because it is not a question of asking for the whole

1049
place it is a question of asking for something of a heritage in the place itself. The letter continues:
"Is there any hope of stopping the crass stupidity and wanton destruction? I am engaged on writing a report for the Royal Commission"
and she has appealed to Mr. Holland, who has been referred to and who is the type of person who is enthusiastic and is prepared to spend a considerable amount of time in pursuit of an objective which he feels at heart to be very important.
Those of us who have been in public life all know very well that the only method by which very much of our legislation has been achieved is by some fellow who has been fanatically enthusiastic—or perhaps I should not say "fanatically" but "very". I had the same experience many years ago with a man called Dan Ryder in respect of the Rent Acts. He kept on and on and eventually he managed to get the original Rent Act through. That is the kind of person we are dealing with.
I have other letters, but I do not think it necessary to read them tonight. As I said before, it is late, but I should like to make some comments which may help the Minister. First, I think that when one is dealing with an ancient building and one that has been regarded as in use, when the building itself is preserved one cannot help but do something inside. We must not talk only about the building. Take the Charing Cross Hospital, for example. That is a building which has been preserved but which could not continue in its original use. We can understand that. It may be that parts of the building to which we are referring ought to be used for a different purpose. I do not believe any of us would deny that, but one must preserve not only the building but something of the character of the institution. Here, one has an opportunity of bringing into the building something which people will want to see and use.
I believe, speaking as a Jew, that it would be a very great attraction for a large number of Jewish people—not only from this country—to go to a place which had this particular background. I am sure that the same would apply to Parliamentarians throughout the world. After all, it was a big advance in the freedom of the individual when a man
1050
like David Salomons by his efforts, together with the Board of Deputies achieved something which helped a portion of the people of the land to play their part in the affairs of the community as a whole. I believe that this kind of thing could attract a large number of tourists. In addition, the objective which Frank Holland has in mind would also attract people—people who are interested in the organ, in music, in pianos. Concerts could be held and there is no earthly reason why they should not be held in the gardens. Look at the fine example of places such as Glyndebourne where musical and classical events are held. This could well develop into something where what the Ministry want would not he interfered with, if it did not insist on having what it has in mind at present.
So I say with all due respect, and realising the difficulties in the way of the Minister, that I feel he would be rendering a considerable service to us all if he would agree to allow part of the building to be used. I cannot feel that a covenant like this, which says that a notice is to be placed on the wall showing the hours when the building is to be open to the public, can be wiped out, though of course there could be legislation—I suppose we could all be hanged if Parliament said we should be, quite irrespective of whether or not we deserved it. However, we have here a case where the trust deed itself indicates that it must continue. Something which is significant must continue. It is on that ground that I appeal to the Minister, if he has not yet made up his mind, to do something to help in the matter which has been so very well raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
8.50 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to make it perfectly clear at the beginning that, although I know that what I have to say will not please noble Lords who have spoken, I hope it will be clearly understood that the DHSS is not unsympathetic to what noble Lords have said or have in mind. I wish to remind your Lordships that this matter has engaged the attention of the DHSS for some considerable time. It has been raised on more than one occasion in another place. A Petition has been presented in another place, where my right honourable friend the Secretary of State

1051
has also put the point of view of the DHSS.
I wish to remind your Lordships that in 1948 the property was transferred to and invested in the then Minister of Health—now the Secretary of State for Social Services—by virtue of Section 6(2) of the National Health Service Act 1946. Under Section 6(4) of that Act transferred property was vested in the Minister free of any trust existing immediately before the appointed day, 5th July 1948. I mention that because a number of emotive words and expressions have been used this evening. I hope that I am not doing anyone an injustice when I say that there has been an underlying suggestion that the action taken by the DHSS has been improper in view of the terms of the Trust.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? No one is suggesting for one moment that it was not within the power of the Ministry. What we are asking for is something rather different. The question of whether the power ought not to have been given is not for us or the Minister to consider now. I am not blaming him for that. But we are hoping that he will lend a sympathetic ear and let us have a part of this place.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. I was not referring to my noble friend Lord Janner. I was really referring to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. I am not going to give way any more. Let me say this—
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I should like to make it quite clear that I was not suggesting that it was improper. I suggested that, notwithstanding that there is no illegality, some regard should be had to the terms of the Trust.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that I can satisfy the noble Lord on that point in due course. By virtue of the section which I quoted, as extended by Section 53(3) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973—which both noble Lords voted in favour of at the appropriate time—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is empowered to use such property for the purpose of
1052
any of her functions under the National Health Service Acts, subject to an obligation to secure, so far as practicable, that the objects for which any such property was used immediately before the appointed day are not prejudiced thereby. On transfer to the National Health Service in 1948 the property was administered by the South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board which continued its use as a convalescent home until its closure on 31st March 1972.
No noble Lord has mentioned the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on this matter. I only hope that noble Lords who have spoken have read it, and I am obliged to say that there is some doubt in my mind as to whether noble Lords have in fact done so. In case they have not, may I point out that the Report says:
"In my opinion it is reasonably clear and beyond any real doubt that the proposed use of David Salomons' house as a training school for hospital staff will not be a breach of that stipulation."
The Parliamentary Commissioner went into this very carefully, and, as I say, he came to the conclusion that there had been no breach of the terms of the Trust Deed.
The South East Thames Regional Health Authority, which is the successor authority to the South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, is now using the house as a centre for a national training scheme for senior catering staff; and to provide regional training facilities for nurses, paramedical staff, administrators, pharmacists, architects, engineers, domestic staff, and all who need training in management.
Noble Lords opposite will know that, under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, there is an obligation on Regional Health Authorities to provide management training for certain groups within the National Health Service. The South East Thames Regional Health Authority—as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, quite rightly says—employs about 60,000 people. They are not all employed in management roles, but about 8,000 of them qualify for training for various managerial functions and there is an obligation on that RHA to provide adequate training for them. At present there are two lecture rooms. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount

1053
Royal, said that one would seat 130 people. But training cannot be done on that basis. It can be done only in small groups.
The result is that the RHA can probably now take to train at the very most 60 or 70 people. As the noble Lord probably knows, the RHA has built two houses, which provide about 70 single rooms for those in residential training. The noble Lord may have seen those houses when he went down there. There is no getting away from the fact that the Regional Health Authority has a very ideal and satisfactory training centre. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, went so far as to suggest that money might well be squandered. However, I must say that it is often necessary to gather at fairly regular intervals large groups of people for training purposes. Training these days, in a developing, reorganised National Health Service cannot be left at the management levels. We have toprovide—and this is certainly the intention of some RHAs—regular discussions with perhaps family doctors in the area, with other administrators, with other people who are working on the periphery of the National Health Service. Perhaps the noble Lord has not looked up David Salomons House on a map, although I know he has been there. This particular place is almost the dead centre of the South East Thames Regional Health Authority area. There could be no better place. The RHA need a conference hall where it can take 200 or 250 people not once a year, but several times a year.
There is no better place, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, must agree, than this particular Science Theatre. If we have to provide—and we would have to—alternative conference facilities, it would cost us something in the region of £300,000. That is where money would be squandered, when there is in situ a place that is absolutely ideal. No other hospital buildings in the Region lend themselves to development as a residential training centre from the point of view of location, layout and current availability. The conversion of the David Salomons Science Theatre will cost somewhere in the region of £35,000 to £40,000. I think heating will cost about £25,000. As to the fittings, furniture and other things, I do not know—but let us say
1054
£15,000. But that is only one-tenth, roughly, of what it would cost us if we had to start from scratch and build a new place, which, as I have already said, we should have to do, having regard to the training demands of that particular Regional Health Authority.
The Authority has emphasised that it needs the whole house for training purposes and, as I have been at some pains to point out, this includes the Science Theatre, which is to be used as the main lecture and conference hall. One of the problems we are facing in the National Health Service today, I think—and this is a personal opinion—is that we are working in a too closely knit organisation. I am sure the noble Lord. Lord Cottesloe, who has had more experience in this field than anyone in your Lordships' House (I have known him for 30 years or more, and ever since I have known him he has been involved in this), will know that we must bring in the general practitioners, the health visitors, indeed the vast army of people who are serving the National Health Service—not just the administrators but the nursing sisters, the tutors and so on. We can do that only if we can house them, and we envisage a very frequent use of this Science Theatre, both as a main lecture hall and as a conference hall.
Moreover, there would be practical difficulties—and, again, the noble Lord. Lord Strathcona, who has visited the place will know this—in having a public museum in the middle of a training centre for Health Service personnel. All necessary steps are being taken to ensure the preservation of the Welte organ which is installed in the Science Theatre, and it can be made available for public viewing by prior arrangement with the training centre authorities. But I know that this is not being realistic at all. We have great sympathy with the view that this organ should be available; but we must face the fact that the organ has apparently remained, not only intact but unused, for something like 38 years. It will cost a colossal sum to put that right. I believe it has something like 2,400 pipes.
The ideal solution to this would be for the Welte organ and the Piano Museum to be housed in one building in a more central place. My noble friend Lord Janner talked about the large number of

1055
people who would visit it. I do not know whether my noble friend has been to see the David Salomons lecture theatre. It is not an easy place to get to unless you have a car. It is off the beaten track, and it is off the map. You will not get vast numbers of people going there. We should like to see the Piano Museum and this organ housed in a suitable place within easy access of the metropolis so that people could visit it. We have great sympathy with what the present curator of the Piano Museum wants to do. We understand from what has been said tonight that a large number of people are anxious to see the Piano Museum preserved and the Welte organ perhaps incorporated in it. It would be ideal if this could be done, but I think that the people who want this have got to do something more, if I may say so, than sign petitions and send letters. I think they have got to back their interest with a certain amount of financial subscription; and if this is so much in demand, as I would hope it is, it should not be difficult to do this.
The Regional Health Authority—and I am empowered to say this appreciate the concern to find a home for the Piano Museum, but do not feel that they can alter their intended use of the Science Theatre. I think we would be accused of squandering money if, as a result, we then had to build something else to take its place. There are two memento rooms there, as noble Lords will know. I have seen them myself. There is no reason why certain electrical fitments should not be put there; but I have been told that the Science Museum in South Kensington and the South Eastern Electricity Board, who are forming amuseum at Tonbridge, have been consulted and have both expressed interest in the electrical fittings in the Science Theatre. Now Tonbridge is not all that distance away. I do not know whether it would be possible to get them interested in the organ, which is indeed a remarkable thing. One does not see them very often. But, of course, it would
1056
involve its removal and re-assembly. I believe that some years ago it was offered to the local vicar, who found that it would cost£2,000 to remove and re-assemble the piano; and I think he was also faced with the possibility of a bill of several thousand pounds more to strengthen his church to house it. Obviously, it is going to cost a great deal more. I do not know that I can usefully add anything else. We have gone into this matter very carefully. If it had been possible in some way to meet the request, noble Lords can take it from me that we should have done so. But we do need the Theatre, and I think we are under an obligation to use it in the way that we are proposing.
Having said that, I can only repeat that we hope that some means can be found whereby the Piano Museum can find more suitable premises where perhaps it might be possible to have the Welte organ, if it is wanted, and where it can be available to far more people than it is at the present moment. I do not think, having seen the Theatre myself, that it would be the right place to site the Piano Museum because it is so much off the beaten track. One would be living in a fool's paradise if one felt that a vast army of people were going to trek there every week to see it. I am sorry I cannot be more encouraging. In fact, I have not been encouraging at all. It is not as though we have dismissed this matter lightly. Noble Lords will know that it has been raised in another place; it has been given a great deal of attention and I think we really must go ahead. In fact, we have made a start, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, knows, and I hope the hall will be fully operative by the coming Easter.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past nine o'clock