Sitting of 5 February 1975

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

    Housing Acquisition
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have been acquired, or are in the course of acquisition, under the scheme outlined in Circular 70 of 1974; what is the total amount of loans for which sanction has been sought under the scheme; and what financial limitations there are on the rate of expansion of the programme of acquisition.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The returns so far submitted by local authorities in England and Wales show that under the general consent given in Circular 70/74 some £60 million was spent on about 7,400 existing houses from April to 30th September last. Some £20 million has been approved for acquisitions falling outside the general consent. The expenditure limits on next year's acquisition will be higher than those in use for 1974–75.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my hon. Friend agree that a total of 7,000 is totally inadequate and that a successful municipalisation programme will necessarily involve compensation on the same lines as any other nationalisation programme, such as by the issue of Government stock rather than by cash, as the cash involved would be excessively inflationary?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend and I have discussed that suggestion several times. I see severe drawbacks to that way of handling the purchase of rented dwellings, but there are aspects of it which bear further examination. No
    1348
    doubt we can pursue that matter on another occasion.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the Minister satisfied that local authorities which are acquiring properties are carrying out adequate surveys beforehand and are not later finding that they have landed their ratepayers with impossible burdens of repair?
    Mr. Freeson: This must vary from one kind of property to another. After all, one of the main objectives that the Government have set in this field and which we are trying to encourage local authorities to pursue is the purchase of properties which are in need of modernisation and improvement. Indeed, I would wish to see local authorities concentrate most of their activities on a programme basis in such areas. It would inevitably follow from this that a considerable level of expenditure would be involved in many instances in such modernisation, conversion and repair, since the properties in question would be in grave need of it in such areas.

    Railways (Children's Fares)
    Mrs. Wiseasked the Secretary or State for the Environment whether he will direct British Rail to extend children's half-fares from under-14 years of age to under the statutory school leaving age of 16 years, in order to encourage the use of this form of public transport.
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): No. It would not be appropriate for me to issue directives on detailed aspects of fares policy. Concessions on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend already exist for season tickets for school journeys and for family travel.
    Mrs. Wise: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people think there was a complete lack of logic in the failure to extend half-fare concessions to take account of increases in the statutory school leaving age? If he cannot direct that this be done, will he at least encourage it, bearing in mind that the years between 14 and 16 are extremely expensive for parents, so that the absence of these concessions is not only lacking in logic but presents serious practical difficulties for families? We want to encourage and enable people to use public transport, do we not?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that we should take all reasonable steps to encourage the use of public transport. However, for journeys to school half-price tickets are already available, not only up to 16 but up to the age of 18, and there is a very successful reduced fares scheme, which is commercially viable as well, for students over 18. Thus the objective that my hon. Friend has in mind is met by British Railways. However, if she knows of any particular difficulties and will let me know about them, I shall certainly draw them to the Board's attention.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that arrangement is not particularly suitable in Scotland? Will he bear in mind that the original reason for fixing 14 as the age was that it was the compulsory school leaving age? Now that it has been increased by statute to 16, surely the same logic and the same reasoning should result in the extension of this privilege. Will he try to remember that these fares are a very costly charge to the working man's weekly income?
    Mr. Mulley: As I have already explained, children who regularly use the railways to go to and from school can and usually do get half-price tickets. For holiday and leisure purposes they would normally, travel with their families, and their are similar family concessions available for peak periods which I think cater reasonably for this need.

    One-bedroom Housing
    Mrs. Ann Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to encourage local authorities to increase their stock of one-bedroomed accommodation.
    Mr. Freeson: We will be issuing advice very soon to local authorties on ways to increase the stock of one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed dwellings.
    Mrs. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is indeed a great and an increasing shortage of one-bedroom accommodation? Does he agree that if local authorities were to increase their stock of this type of accommodation they could make better use of existing stock by transferring tenants from houses which are under-occupied, which would result
    1350
    in a rationalisation of the present housing situation?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I suggest also that in at least some circumstances it is a question not simply of building new stock but possibly of adapting existing large stock where the demand is not so great in order to increase the availability of small dwellings that way. Also, there is a much better provision in this matter in new construction by local authorities generally than there is in the private sector, and the advice which we shall be issuing will cover that aspect of the subject as well as local authorities' works.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the Minister's statement and I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) since both one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation is very much in demand. The figures from my local authority indicate that over 100 applicants need only one-bedroom accommodation. Will the Minister please expedite his instructions to local authorities, which will assist them in this matter—which no doubt will arise in our debate tomorrow?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly welcome the support from the Liberal benches and that which is given as a whole. I emphasise that the advice will be issued very shortly.
    Mr. Scott: May I also welcome the promise of a circular? Might not the Minister encourage local authorities to take a more relaxed attitude towards lodgers in council accommodation, because this would help to maximise the use of the existing housing stock?
    Mr. Freeson: We are examining this aspect of the housing scene also as part of a general look we have initiated recently at the use of stock across the board—not only local authority housing stock but housing stock within local authority areas—to see how better it might be used for various initiatives which can be taken.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now prepare a White Paper setting out all the relevant correspondence and details of

    1351
    discussions which took place from 26th November 1974 to 20th January 1975 between his Department, the French Government, British Rail and the Channel Tunnel companies, resulting in his decision to withdraw the support of Her Majesty's Government for the Channel Tunnel project.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already explained how it came about that the British Government saw no alternative to accepting the companies' formal claim of abandonment.
    Mr. Adley: Is not the Minister aware that there are—to put it no higher—different interpretations of events and that there is a belief that, given essential good will on all sides, a different solution might well have been found? Is he aware that moves are being made in the European Parliament and elsewhere to try to engender European financial interest in this project? Will he give an assurance that he will keep an open mind on these discussions pending an approach which is likely to be made to his right hon. Friend before the end of this month?
    Mr. Mulley: As to the last point, I have said several times that we shall be very willing to consider any such proposals for a European involvement in the costs of the tunnel but so far we have had no such proposals. As to the other point, I do not think anyone has denied that whereas the two Governments were anxious to reach a standstill arrangement, which would have got us over the difficulty of 31st December and safeguarded the rights of all involved while discussions took place, we did not get any communication from the companies until after 31st December, and that was a formal notice of abandonment. That was the difficulty in which we were placed. It was a difficulty clearly foreseen by the previous Government, because they made extensive provision for it in the agreement.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although a decision not to go ahead with the project has been taken, men are, apparently, still carrying on digging, from both ends? Is it not about time someone told them to stop? [An HON. MEMBER: "NVT."] Although I can commend to my right hon. Friend some very worthy projects for consideration,
    1352
    either as workers' co-operatives or as candidates for the National Enterprise Board, will he please ensure that this is not one of them.
    Mr. Mulley: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. So far, although we have had many helpful proposals about how we might proceed, no one has suggested a workers' co-operative. The reason why some work is still continuing is that, as my right hon. Friend has informed the House, we are desirous of retaining much information as to the work which has been done, and one or two tests are still being completed. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that this is not adding substantially to the costs already incurred.

    National Bus Company
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the annual report and accounts of the National Bus Company.
    Mr. Mulley: By the middle of the year.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the report of a statement he made to a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party about the grave condition of the National Bus Company, it is high time that a statement was made by him on the Floor of the House so that we might see whether the company has come to him to seek immediate cash assistance and, if so, whether the figure of £25 million is correct?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that sometimes Press reports are not a wholly accurate account of what transpires in private meetings. But it is well known that the National Bus Company, like all public service transport undertakings, is operating at a loss in present circumstances. I am having discussions with the chairman. If the need arises, the Government will take the necessary steps to assist the company. Publication of last year's accounts would not assist either the hon. Gentleman or the House to assess the situation in 1975, which is our immediate concern.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that

    1353
    the reason for the present financial problems of the National Bus Company is the counter-inflation policy of the previous Government, which did not permit nationalised industries to increase their rates in accord with the inflation that was taking place at that time?
    Mr. Mulley: This probably was a factor in the deficits incurred by a number of public sector industries. But that does not apply in present circumstances.
    Mr. Tom King: Is the Minister aware that, at this time of great concern about the high cost of petrol in rural areas, Treasury Ministers are giving the answer that greater reliance will be placed by the Government on the use of public transport? In the circumstances of the National Bus Company and with more and more counties seriously concerned as to whether they can continue to subsidise local bus services, and at a time when the bus companies are coming forward with much greater demands for subsidies, what will the right hon. Gentleman do to preserve even the present limited fabric of bus services?
    Mr. Mulley: I am very much concerned about the problem. Only yesterday my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was having discussions with the local authorities. He has already met the operators and the trade unions with a view to trying to find a way out of these very difficult problems. One of the difficulties is that it is recognised that in many rural areas it is not viable to run reasonable bus services and that the counties, as they have powers under the transport supplementary grant, should make subsidies to them. Counties which included this in their plans obtained a grant specifically for that purpose in the TSG recently announced. The trouble is that many counties have either cut back on their plans or are contemplating doing so. This is a great difficulty, because the whole concept has been that the counties should have some regard to the social service aspects of these routes.

    Rent Act 1974
    Dr. Hampsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will expedite his proposed survey on the operation of the Rent Act 1974 in view
    1354
    of the latest representations about its effects.
    Mr. Freeson: The Department is already monitoring the operation of the Act as closely as possible.
    Dr. Hampson: Does the Minister believe that fair rents should also be a fair return on landlords' capital? If rent officers continue to fix rents which give a return of only about 3 per cent., how on earth does the Minister hope to arrest the collapse in the private rented market brought about by the Act, which is making thousands homeless when local authorities cannot cope?
    Mr. Freeson: We are committed to review the operation of the Rent Acts, and certain aspects of the point the hon. Gentleman has raised will fall to be considered under the housing finance review on which we are embarking.
    As regards the loss of rented property from the market, there seems on the whole to be a fairly consistent experience in this through all types of legislative situation. So far as I am aware, the figures are not increasing now. The position has been, roughly speaking, that about 100,000 rented dwellings have left the market per year for the last decade or more.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: In view of the campaign of vilification and misrepresentation against the Rent Act 1974, which has been mounted particularly by certain newspapers which should know better, will my hon. Friend undertake a publicity campaign to let landlords, particularly resident landlords, know the very considerable advantages conferred upon them by the Act?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly consider that and call for a review of the publicity material that we have been using to see whether we can put across the facts about the Act more effectively. It is true that, due to the failure to be able to print the Act at an early stage, and also to some of the propaganda activities in certain fields, there has been misunderstanding by a number of resident landlords about their position. I believe that this is now being corrected and I shall do my best to encourage the process of correction.

    Economic Development Committee for Building
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to attend personally the next meeting of the Economic Development Committee for Building on which his Department is represented at official level.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Latham: Would not such a visit allow the Minister to confirm the EDC's latest forecast of a fall in new construction output in 1975 of 6 per cent. over 1974?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not need to attend a meeting of the EDC in order to keep contact with all sections of the building industry, with all the various forecasts which are being made, and with work in that industry. I am well aware of the EDC's forecasts. They are gloomy. The situation is very difficult. I am not quite as pessimistic about the situation as these forecasts would suggest that we should be.

    Central Lancashire New Town
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is to be made in the Central Lancashire New Town in respect of hospitals, doctors, dentists and social workers; and whether these provisions reflect estimated population increases by 1986.
    The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): Proposals for the provision of health and social services for the estimated future population of Central Lancashire New Town are described in the development corporation's outline plan, recently the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector's report on the inquiry is awaited and it will be some time before final decisions are reached.
    Mr. Thorne: What advice was given to the development corporation about the planning of these facilities in line with the Skeffington Report? Were any recommendations made to the corporation about consulting people and organisations in the area with regard to the supply of these facilities?
    Mr. Silkin: The proposals in the outline plan are based on discussions with the corporation and also with authorities having responsibility for the provision of these services. Those discussions are of a continuing nature, because obviously as time passes the aspect may change. We try to mirror that, because my Department holds informal consultations with the appropriate Departments so that we have a full and continuing picture and the various priorities can be kept in step.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether his announcement last year of the increase in the percentage of rented houses that he is to apply to all new towns up to a total of 75 per cent. is to apply to the Central Lancashire New Town?
    Mr. Silkin: I should not have thought that that question arose out of the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), but if the House will grant me some indulgence I will say that the hon. and learned Gentleman should carefully consider what I have said. He will see it fairly clearly stated, I hope, in the consultation document on new towns and he will see that the basis is not a fixed proportion but that we shall eliminate as soon as possible the waiting list in new towns, particularly for second generation families, and that in doing so inevitably we will give greater weight to rented accommodation, which is needed in the new towns, than to houses for sale.

    Pigeons
    Mr. Charles Irvingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps and research he has taken to control the activities of pigeons on public buildings.
    Mr. Freeson: Wire screens, nylon mesh, sticky jel; but no research.
    Mr. Irving: Is not the Minister aware that the damage caused by these birds to public buildings amounts to over £20 million a year? Will he consider an amendment to the Public Health Act 1936, or perhaps follow the example of the French and put the pigeons on the pill?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall consider the points the hon. Gentleman has put to

    1357
    me. In the meantime, I hope that he comes to no harm.

    Hardwoods (Planting)
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to encourage the planting of hardwoods.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Government offer a supplementary grant of £125 per hectare for hardwood planting under the Forestry Commission's new dedication scheme. My right hon. Friend's own Department plants many hardwoods and other trees—for example, along the motorways—assists local authority planting schemes and supports the Tree Council. Moreover, grants for planting in the countryside may be available from the Countryside Commission.
    Mr. Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent reply. I appreciate his Department's concern. Has his right hon. Friend had discussions with the Treasury, and has he pointed out to the Treasury that the effect of its capital transfer tax will be very damaging to British forestry and that all the good intentions of his Department will be frustrated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is not careful?
    Mr. Silkin: I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's contribution to a debate on 21st January and I believe I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at that time that he would carefully consider all the representations which had been made.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, as indeed I welcome the encouraging of every form of planting of small copses of hardwoods. Will he urge the bringing under proper planting control of large-scale planting of softwoods, which is terribly damaging over many parts of the countryside?
    Mr. Silkin: I shall certainly consider the question, as I must whenever my hon. Friend makes a suggestion, because of his well-known history of interest in and concern for the environment. I know that the planting of suitable trees in suitable places is a matter of great concern. I shall look at the problem.

    Pedestrian Crossings (Essex)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for pedestrian crossings have been made and approved, respectively, in respect of the county of Essex during the past year.
    Mr. Mulley: Of 14 applications for pelican crossings, five were approved and three are still under consideration. My approval is not required for zebra crossings.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, in Buckhurst Hill and Loughton in my constituency there are several spots where terrible accidents have occurred and it is very difficult to get appropriate action? Does not the Department think that this is rather over-centralised and that local authorities should have more discretion in such matters?
    Mr. Mulley: I think the difficulty in the example the hon. Gentleman quoted was that the proposed crossing was very near a junction and it would have given rise to traffic difficulties. The initiative in all these cases is for the local authority when it makes the site proposals. We have extended the use of the pelican crossing. As I have said, we do not seek to control zebra crossings. We have extended the criteria for pelican crossings and when we are satisfied that the scheme is working well we shall probably be able to relax that control too.

    Bus Purchase Grants
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the controls exercised by his Department over the administration of bus purchase grants for stage carriage operators.
    Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir. The procedures have already been revised to reduce the opportunities for fraudulent grant claims. My officials are also discussing with the operators their estimates of future bus purchases.
    Mr. Huckfield: My right hon. Friend knows that millions of pounds are involved. What about the case of Barton's, Britain's biggest independent operator,

    1359
    which last year actually made a profit out of selling five-year-old buses and buying new ones under the grant scheme? What about the Newport cases last November where, for example, in the Moseley case some £10,000 in costs and fines were awarded? What about the Don Everall case in which £2,000 in costs and fines was awarded—[Interruption.] Can I say to my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked three supplementary questions already.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the stories now circulating about dealers and operators who have had to hand money back and have still not been taken to court? Is he not concerned that a worthwhile scheme which should be helping hard-pressed public transport is being turned into a gigantic milking machine for filling private operators' pockets?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend tends sometimes to use colourful language. We have made some amendments to meet the point and there have been 16 successful prosecutions involving six operators and two distributors. If my hon. Friend has information which he thinks we can use to correct any existing abuses or possible abuses of the scheme, he knows that I am available to talk about these things. That is probably a better way to do it than by parliamentary question and answer.
    Mr. Fry: In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), many bus operators are in a desperate position and services are being drastically cut. People are not able to get to work, particularly in rural areas. When I raised this matter with the Prime Minister he suggested that I should take it up with the Minister of Transport. For once I am taking the Prime Minister's advice and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman when his Government will do something to produce a transport policy to serve people in the rural areas.
    Mr. Mulley: I think the hon. Member knows enough about the facts of transport to realise that it is easy to make a declamatory statement about the problems of rural transport, but it is not easy to produce a scheme especially when,
    1360
    perhaps for understandable reasons, many county councils are unwilling to make contributions to the social service this transport system would provide.

    Roads (Sussex)
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, following his decision not to proceed with the Channel Tunnel, how quickly he now expects to be able to announce improvements to the congested roads serving the port of Newhaven and surrounding areas.
    Mr. Mulley: As I told the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) on 3rd February, we are considering the general implications of the decision on the Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that we have been waiting for more than a year since consultations about road schemes took place in my constituency, particularly for the relief of Lewes but also for the whole of the surrounding area of Newhaven? Is it not time that the Minister gave his decision on these road schemes? This is a social matter for the people involved. Will the Minister give a specific answer to the questions which he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have avoided answering for far too long?
    Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Member probably knows, work on the new southern bypass for Lewes is expected to begin this year, and I expect construction of the Falmer diversion to begin during 1976. The Question asked what we had done since the decision on the Channel Tunnel was taken on 20th January.
    Mr. Rathbone: Nothing.
    Mr. Mulley: We are considering this point. Hon. Members would do well to bear in mind that practically all hon. Members are in favour of road schemes in their constituencies but that whenever a line has to be drawn on a map there is the most intense opposition. If we are to take public participation procedures seriously—they were introduced by the last Conservative Government—this adds two or three years to the time between taking a decision to build a road and being able to begin construction. In addition, we have cut back the size of the road programme for reasons of general economic stringency.
    Mr. Costain: is the Minister aware that British Railways can extend their port facilities without the necessity of planning permission by the local authority? Great congestion occurs in towns where such expansion takes place. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to meet a deputation which I will bring to him headed by the Chairman of the Shepway District Council, who can explain the situation personally?
    Mr. Mulley: I have written to the hon. Gentleman to say that we will be happy to talk to him about any problems arising from the Channel Tunnel. If on that occasion he would like to bring representatives of his district council, naturally I or my hon. Friend would be very happy to see them.

    Rate Support Grant (Cheshire)
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now say what rate support grant for 1975–76 will be available to the Cheshire County Council.
    Mr. John Silkin: The county council now has details of its initial needs element grant entitlement. The figure is some £46·8 million. The county will also benefit indirectly from the resources element grant.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that gracious and informative answer, but is he aware that the ratepayers of Cheshire, as elsewhere in the country, experienced massive rate increases last year? Even with a no-growth situation for all services, they will experience this year further massive increases, certainly in excess of 35 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Secretary of State to bring in special rate relief for domestic ratepayers because of the intolerable situation which faces them?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that Cheshire can complain too much about the meanness of the central Government. The grant this year is 47 per cent. higher in money terms that it was last year, and Cheshire has received £12 million through our increase order for 1974–75.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are exceedingly grateful to my right hon. Friend for the extra money, which was exceedingly useful to the Cheshire County Council. The
    1362
    sooner we can offer a fundamental review of the entire rating system, however, the sooner we shall get away from the nonsense which requires very substantial grants from the central Government for absolutely essential services.
    Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. We are all concerned about the effect of rates from whichever side of the House we come. It was for that purpose that the Layfield committee of inquiry was set up by my right hon. Friend.

    Empty Housing
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he can give about the performance of local authorities in dealing with empty houses and flats.
    Mr. Freeson: About 4,100 empty properties have been bought under Circular 70/74 by local authorities in the first half of this financial year. A number of local authorities are organising special quick repair and lettings services. About 90 local authorities are levying 100 per cent. rates on empty properties. I am examining further initiatives which might be taken to increase the use of empty properties generally.
    Mr. Jessel: Will the Minister direct his attention to empty houses and flats which are already in the possession of local authorities? Will he endeavour to galvanise those local authorities into dealing with them urgently? Is he aware of reports of about half a million houses and flats in the possession of local authorities which are empty? Are these figures correct? If they are not, what are the correct figures and what are the Government going to do about this situation?
    Mr. Freeson: The end-of-year survey which has been undertaken over a number of years shows, according to the latest figures, that the hon. Member's figure is erroneous. The figure is about 1 per cent. of the total stock—that is, 1 per cent. of 5½ million.
    Mr. Jessel: What is the absolute figure?
    Mr. Freeson: The figure is about 1 per cent. of the 5½, million dwellings owned by local authorities. As for chasing up local authorities I shall be considering, as I have suggested, what steps

    1363
    I can take. I urge the hon. Member to turn his attention to his own local authority, where, I understand, about 1,000 empty properties have been on the market for more than six months and these could have been purchased by the local authority if it set its mind to the task.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider proposals which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) last week to give local authorities power to requisition properties in order that homeless people might be housed in them?
    Mr. Freeson: I have considered requisitioning on a number of occasions over the past year. Each time I have come to the conclusion, having studied the matter very closely, that this would not be an effective way of achieving the objective I wish to achieve. However, I certainly hope to come to the House and announce initiatives in this area not too long from now.

    Government Offices (London)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many square feet of office space is rented by Government Departments in the London area; and what is the total annual rental.
    Mr. Freeson: The figures are 14·4 million square feet; and £39·4 million in this financial year.
    Mr. Lipton: Those staggering figures are no joke. To what extent has the Government's policy on dispersal reduced them in the past year or so, and to what extent is it likely to reduce them during the next year or two?
    Mr. Freeson: I cannot speak for the past year, but the Government's dispersal programme will lead to savings in London rents amounting to about £27 million a year, at current figures, by the time the programme is complete, and a total reduction of 4·25 million square feet is expected.
    Various aspects of the matter need to be considered. It is not only a question of dispersal policy. It is also a question of the availability of capital to get Crown buildings provided, to avoid the leasing of buildings at high rents. But this is a much more complicated and more questionable
    1364
    area of examination, because it brings me into the whole area of public expenditure and the total allocations that must be made.
    Mr. Sainsbury: What is the current annual rental value of the office buildings occupied by the Government in London, as opposed to the rent paid? The Minister referred to the opportunities to build Crown buildings. Is he aware how long the discussions have been going on on this subject? Is he aware of the advantages in efficiency of operation in modern purpose-designed buildings that could flow from the Government's taking advantage of the opportunities open to them to build on vacant sites that they now own, or have the option to own, in central London for office development?
    Mr. Freeson: The construction of Crown buildings has been under consideration for a long time and has been the subject of economies under successive Governments over many years. It is not possible merely to say "Build more" without involving oneself in an expansion of public expenditure. It is not a cheap exercise. There are matters which constrain us and drive the Government into rented buildings.
    I cannot give a full answer off-the cuff to the question about current rental values of properties that have been under-rented as a result of the business rent controls and the freeze. I believe that if rents were to be charged at current levels following the freeze the additional amount for 1975–76 would be about £6·5 million nationally.

    Harlow New Town
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the expansion of Harlow New Town.
    Mr. John Silkin: I am considering the development corporation's recommendations. If I decide to proceed, I shall consult the local authorities before making a draft order extending the designated area of the town.
    Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend, whose recent visit to Harlow was much appreciated, bear in mind that the expansion of Harlow has been under serious consideration for about 10 years and that it is vital to second-generation applicants, both sides of industry, all the

    1365
    authorities concerned and the population as a whole that a decision should be reached at an early stage? Can he say anything about the time scale for bringing the matter to a conclusion? There is considerable impatience in the area over the whole business and the delay we suffered before my right hon. Friend took over responsibility.
    Mr. Silkin: If I were to proceed to make a draft order, my expectation would be that the process would be completed within 12 months from now. I understand that I would probably be sent to the Tower if I discussed the merits of the case at this stage.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received so far from neighbouring authorities, interests and individuals? What attention is being paid to such representations?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that I would be acting properly if at this stage I were to make the matter public. I have said that it is a question which I must consider in a quasi-judicial capacity.

    Molsworth Airfield
    Sir David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why the Defence Land Agent has failed to pursue his negotiations for the offer to the previous owners of any of the 636 acres of agricultural land surplus to Service requirements at the former Molsworth Airfield, in spite of the recommendation of the Defence Lands Committee (the Nugent Committee) on page 204 of its Report that those 636 acres should be disposed of.
    Mr. Freeson: There has been no such failure. Under the normal procedure for disposal of surplus land, offers are made to the other Government Departments and public authorities first. The Central Electricity Generating Board may need the property, and its decision is awaited.
    Sir David Renton: Is it a fact that the CEGB wants the land for a nuclear power station? Would it not be a bad site for such a station? Is the Minister aware that the land has been blighted for three years? It is a good farmland. Why is the hon. Gentleman withholding it from production because of the speculative possibility of a power station there?
    Mr. Freeson: It is not a question of withholding it from agricultural use as a matter of deliberate policy because there is a speculative possibility of a power station. The procedure laid down has been followed by successive Governments. Questions as to whether nuclear power generation is a suitable use of the land should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. All I would say is that if a decision in favour of such a station is made by the CEGB, in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the planning procedure must be gone through. Planning application must be made.

    Thermal Insulation
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to encourage local authorities to improve thermal insulation standards in existing public-sector housing.
    Mr. Freeson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) on 25th November 1974.—[Vol. 882, c. 89.]
    Mr. Rost: That was not very satisfactory. Does the Minister accept that whereas owner-occupiers have an incentive to spend money on improving their property with thermal insulation, because it increases the value of the property, there is no such incentive for tenants of local authority housing, nor is there such an incentive for local authorities to spend money on thermal insulation, because it is not the authorities who pay the heating bills? What will the hon. Gentleman do about this in the interests of energy conservation?
    Mr. Freeson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts a little wrong. The position, as I stated in the previous reply, is that the installation of central heating and insulation in existing council houses is already accepted for subsidy purposes if it forms part of a comprehensive scheme of improvement and conversion.
    As to the position of tenants, there is nothing to prevent local authorities and tenants or tenants' associations negotiating arrangements—I know that some do—whereby tenants can undertake certain works on a reimbursable basis. I hope

    1367
    that if tenants go to their local authority with a view to undertaking insulation arrangements they will be suitably assisted by the authority.
    Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friend sends out any circulars on this matter or any other within the ambit of his Department that result in local authorities having to spend money which they may not have taken into account in the period between the two financial years, will he also send one of the circulars to the district auditors in order that they may be informed that the Government have suggested to local authorities that there is a need to spend money? That kind of suggestion was made by the previous Government, when the Minister responsible sent out a circular instructing local authorities to spend money on environmental matters to cut down the long list of unemployed people, and because one local authority—Clay Cross—did that the district auditor has tried to haul its members before the court.
    Mr. Freeson: It would be improper for me to involve myself on the Floor of the House in matters which are the subject of representations before a district auditor.
    I have no plans to issue any circular about thermal insulation, although I am sure that I shall be issuing circulars on other matters concerned with housing policy.

    House Building
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of housing starts in the private sector in the last six months of 1974 as compared with the same period in 1973.
    Mr. Freeson: In the five months July-November 1974, starts in Great Britain were 38,900. Over the same period in 1973 there were 83,300 houses started. Provisional figures for December 1974 will be published tomorrow.
    Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the building merchants' index shows that the decline in private house-building is likely to continue into the next six months of this year? What measures have he and the Department in mind to stimulate the building of houses
    1368
    rather than the demand for them, which the measures announced so far have had the effect of doing?
    Mr. Freeson: The implications of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question are a little unfortunate in the present situation. He should recall, as was made clear when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement on 27th January, that the financial initiatives had been made after the fullest consultation with builders' representatives and building society representatives and that they were welcomed by both elements. We believe that the initiatives will contribute to boosting morale and the demand and provision of houses in the coming months. We in this House as well as the Government should be doing everthing we can to assist builders in that direction.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that among the lessons to be learnt from the fluctuations in private house building is the complete inadequacy of private enterprise as a means of constructing homes for our people?
    Mr. Freeson: Certainly there are some basic structural problems on the financial side of housing provision and in the structure of the building industry as such. These matters will fall to be considered within our housing finance study, upon which we have already embarked, and in further consideration of other aspects of housing construction which we shall be initiating in future.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Does the Minister agree that under all Governments tens of thousands of housing starts are held up each year because of the actions of local authorities and his own Department? Does he accept that when permission is sought to erect a dwelling or to convert a property into flats it takes up to 12 months to obtain planning consent? Is he aware that that has nothing to do with planning as such, as every expert is aware, but is purely bureaucratic inefficiency? In order to help the homeless, will he try to be a reforming Minister and make a determined attempt to reduce the period that has to be spent in obtaining planning consent?
    Mr. Freeson: Both my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and

    1369
    Local Government and myself, and the Secretary of State, are very much concerned with the rôle of planning procedures. To deal with this matter in such generalised terms as the hon. Gentleman has put to the House is not helpful or constructive. If the hon. Gentleman likes to put specific case material to us I assure him that we shall probe all such cases to see whether there are lessons to be learnt and whether any action can be initiated. We shall certainly act.

    Football Referees
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consult the Football Association about its policy of sexual discrimination with regard to the appointment of football referees.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Football Association is represented on the Central Council for Physical Recreation, as are the other governing bodies of sport. This council and the Sports Council are now considering the proposals in the White Paper "Equality for Women" Cmnd. 5724.
    Mr. Steen: I am much encouraged by the Minister's reply. My only regret is that the Minister responsible—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Steen: Will the Minister impress upon the Football Association that it seems unfair, if not unjust, that men can referee women's matches but women are not allowed to referee men's matches? Is he aware that there is a young woman school teacher in my constituency who has been refused registration by the local football association? This woman has passed Class 3 of the Football Association's rules but has been refused registration merely because she is a woman. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 70 women throughout the country similarly qualified who wish to referee men's football matches but have been refused only because they are women?
    Mr. Silkin: I yield to no one in my approval of any measure that is designed to create equality for women. On the other hand, it is true that the Central Council for Physical Recreation has pointed out one or two complications that might arise in a strict application of this
    1370
    proposal relating to football. Those complications are at present being considered by the Government. I can promise the hon. Gentleman, if the House will not misunderstand me, that the council in question is engaged in a close and continuing contact with sporting women's bodies.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: As a serious question, may I ask my right hon. Friend how many women are on the Central Council for Physical Recreation? Further, will he tell me how many women are represented on the governing bodies of many of the sporting organisations? Is it not indicative of the problems we face in straightforward teaching that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the House find this a matter for amusement?
    Mr. Silkin: It is, as my hon. Friend says, a serious subject. I am therefore happy to inform her that the Central Council for Physical Recreation represents all governing bodies in sport including those concerned exclusively with sport for women.
    Mr. Monro: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he sounds rather like a player who played for a team that started the season badly and then fell away? I do not want to become involved with Liverpool and Everton, but does the Minister accept that the Government should in no way get themselves involved in the internal arrangements of our sporting bodies and associations?
    Mr. Silkin: I was trying to point out that the advice of those concerned was perhaps the most important matter to be considered. As for teams that fall away, I think that the hon. Gentleman represents an excellent team on his side of the House that has fallen away recently.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Football Association to appoint the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) a referee, because she would not need a whistle?

    Rates
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what evidence he bases his prediction that the total rate demand for 1975–76 should not on average exceed that for the current year by more than 25 per cent.
    Mr. John Silkin: On the basis that the Government have made a major increase in grant, and that local authorities will keep their expenditure down to the rates of growth allowed for in the settlement and rate realistically.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Greater London Council announced yesterday that it anticipated an increase of 80 per cent. over last year? Rugby has already announced a 61 per cent. increase and Westminster has announced a 70 per cent. increase. The Deputy-Leader of the GLC has indicated that the London boroughs will show an average increase of no less than 50 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where the balancing figures are to come from to bring about the Government's pledge of 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Silkin: It might be as well to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said at the time, namely:
    "if, and only if, local authorities stick to their side of the bargain, I reckon that the average increase—I stress the word 'average'—will be about 25 per cent.…"—[Official Report, 12th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 788.]
    Of course, when there is an average many increases are above the average and a number are below it. It is surprising that I never seem to receive any representations from those who are below the average.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend point out the importance of making clear the basis on which these figures are calculated, as in some cases areas have been extremely fortunate in their position in the past?
    Mr. Silkin: That is a very fair point to make. While I am making fair points I remind the House—[Interruption.] I always make fair points. This has been the largest Government grant to local authorities in history. It has increased by virtually two-thirds from £3,431 million to £5,434 million.
    Mr. Channon: Does not the Minister recognise that in spite of that the increase in the rates this year is likely to be the highest on record, with the possible exception of last year? Will he publish a list of the authorities that he thinks will be below the average so that we may see whether they exist and where they are? Secondly, may we ask what he is doing
    1372
    about local authorities such as the London borough of Wandsworth? That authority has frankly said that it has not the faintest intention of abiding by the guidelines and that it will go ahead fully with public expenditure and let the ratepayers jolly well get on with it.
    Mr. Silkin: I understand that there has been a denial of the newspaper report concerning Wandsworth. I wish that there had been denial in respect of the statement made by the London borough of Barnet a few weeks ago. If a local authority decides to act selfishly and against the national interest, this can only be at the expense of other local authorities. I hope that the local authority associations will take note of this.
    Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the expenditure plans of local authorities are long-term and that local authorities are now suffering from the foolish policies introduced by the Conservative Government, which involved high interest rates and the famous U-turn of 1972 when they sought to get local authorities to cut back on plans to which the Government had committed them?
    Mr. Silkin: It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend made the most generous rate settlement in history. What we are saying to local authorities is that they may stick to last year's figure, plus inescapable commitments. This has generally been accepted throughout the country and by local authority associations as being not only fair but generous.
    Mr. Stainton: The Secretary of State used an important expression about local authorities sticking to their side of the bargain. If those words mean anything, do they not throw a responsibility upon the Government to pursue such bargaining?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not deny that. It is absolutely right. The Government have said that for their part they will not force local authorities to increase expenditure where there should be no such increase. That has happened in the past.
    Mr. Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply—and the right hon. Gentleman must agree with that—I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Wednesday of last week I raised with you the irksome question why it is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster never answers Questions. I pointed out that even if an hon. Member were to table a Question he would have difficulty in getting an answer because Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy follow an exhaustive list of Foreign Office Questions which usually contain twice as many as can be dealt with in the hour that we have available.
  I was aware of the difficulty of tabling a Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy dealing with matters of North Sea oil profits and Finance for Industry. I have now been informed by the Table Office—I suspected that I would be so informed—that no Question can be tabled relating to the affairs with which the Chancellor of the Duchy is at present dealing. I have attempted to table a Question relating to his present talks with the American oil company leaders about the marginal profits arising from North Sea oil exploration. I am told by the Table Office that such a Question cannot be put to the Chancellor of the Duchy. What is more, there is no Question whatever that can be put to him relating to the affairs with which he is currently dealing.
  It was suggested to me that the Chancellor of the Duchy will go through the present Parliament, dealing with all of these multifarious pieces of legislation and interference of one kind or another, and never have to answer a Question. We could reach the farcical situation in which, by devising 12 heraldic titles for themselves, the 12 most important members of the Cabinet could avoid answering Questions relating to their departmental affairs.
  I suggest that this is not a trivial matter. This is a question of a man who, in logic and in practice, has one of the most important Departments in this Government. The fact is that not only I, but any other Member of this House, from whatever side is unable to table a Question dealing with the affairs for which the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible.
  Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. This is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member must use his influence with the Patronage Secretary on this matter. [Laughter.] I am quite serious. How the Government arrange their business—
  Mr. Skinner: You did not say that when they dragged you to the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: How the Government arrange their business and what Minister answers for what, and how, is not a matter for the Chair at all. No doubt what the hon. Member has said will be noted.

CYPRUS
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): In view of the questions that were asked last week I will, with permission, make a statement on Cyprus.
During my recent visit to the United States, I had separate discussions on Cyprus with Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary General of the United Nations.
It is Her Majesty's Government's view that at present, and despite their slow progress, the talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash continue to provide the best chances of moving towards a settlement. The Government fully support these talks and hope that they will be pursued with a greater sense of urgency. A lasting settlement is most likely to be achieved if the Cypriots themselves agree upon the nature of a constitutional settlement. The present talks provide the people of Cyprus, of both communities, with an opportunity to do so.
Our policy remains based on active support for the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and of the General Assembly. I reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government will be ready to support any solution which is acceptable to both communities, and which maintains the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus. I also reaffirm that, if it is the wish of the parties that we should assist in wider negotiations to reach a settlement, we remain ready to do this or to help in any other forum.

1375
The House is aware that the transfer to Turkey of the Turkish Cypriots from the Western Sovereign Base Area is now complete. Winter weather in the camp in the Western Sovereign Base Area had, as I saw for myself when I visited Akrotiri briefly on my way to Africa, brought about a significant worsening in the conditions of these unfortunate refugees. It would have been inhumane to withhold agreement any longer. I was not willing to use these people as political pawns and I refute the suggestion that, by this decision, Her Majesty's Government have shown some change in our policy towards Cyprus. Some have even used it to argue that we support partition. This is untrue.
I remain very conscious of the plight of the Greek Cypriot refugees. We shall continue to do whatever we can to help them. The British Government have not forgotten that many Greek Cypriots have lost their homes and livelihoods. By virtue of their numbers alone, the Greek Cypriots' problems are much greater. Britain has given over £1·5 million in relief aid to Cyprus, but no lasting solution can be found until there has been a political settlement. Nor have we forgotten the many British subjects who have suffered in Cyprus, whether by loss of life or injury, or by damage or loss of property. We are trying to obtain compensation for them and to protect their interests in every way we can.
Humanitarian considerations equally call for a move by Turkey to help the Greek Cypriot refugees. I understand that a proposal has been made that some 5,000 Greek Cypriots should be allowed to return to their homes in an area round Athienou. It remains to be seen whether the conditions for their return can be accepted by the Greek Cypriots, as the villages concerned are behind the Turkish lines.
It would be wrong to assume too quickly that these talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash are irrevocably deadlocked at any one point. The problems of Cyprus have never been easy to solve and a long-term settlement of the many humanitarian, social and political problems of the Republic as a whole can be found only by some agreement between the two communities themselves.
1376
I am in continuing contact with Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash as well as with the Greek and Turkish Governments and have urged on all of them the need for serious bilateral negotiations to be pursued without delay.
Mr. Rippon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which reflects the growing anxieties which have been expressed on both sides of the House about the situation in Cyprus. I welcome his acknowledgement of the plight of the Greek Cypriot refugees and also accept what he said about the rightness of not using the Turkish Cypriot refugees as political pawns, but surely there were discussions with the Turkish Government about the action which they might take to relieve the situation.
As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the best hope is perhaps the talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, what effect does he think the Government's action, taken in the way it was, had upon the talks? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what initiatives the Government are taking to secure the implementation of the treaties of London and Zurich of 1960 in order to create arrangements which will guarantee—and I am sure that this is the policy of both sides of the House—the political independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus?
Finally, in view of the importance of this matter and the interest in it displayed on both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consult and give his support to any proposals which may be made for an early debate?
Mr. Callaghan: There has been continuing discussion with the Turkish Government, as with the Greek Government, about the position of 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees who have been displaced from their homes. Alas, they are not within our jurisdiction or our territory, and, therefore, we can only make representations on their behalf.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what effect the evacuation of the Turkish refugees had on the talks. I could only assume that it should make the Turks rather more accommodating in helping some of the Greek refugees. I did not make it a bargain because this is not a subject to bargain about, but the Turkish Government are well aware of my attitude. Indeed, it is the attitude of the

1377
United States Secretary of State. Both of us have made continuing representations.
We are anxious to play our part in the London and Zurich agreements when we think that the Clerides-Denktash talks cannot be carried any further. Although they seem to be in a position, I regret to say, of near stalemate, I do not think that we could usefully intervene in those discussions. We are watching the situation literally day by day; it is a continuous review.
The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I shall always be willing to account for myself to the House when I am allowed to return to this country from time to time.
Mr. Russell Johnson: Many people will congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his clear and unequivocal rejection of partition, because partition would certainly lead to a continuing foreign, non-Cypriot presence in Cyprus, which would not be for the good.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not use the Turkish Cypriot refugees in Akrotiri as political pawns. Although indubitably he made an extremely honourable decision, does he agree that it appeared to be a change of policy and, therefore, was made to appear as if this country yielded to Turkish pressure? Does he agree that the situation is fairly dangerous? There is a real danger of deadlock. There is the question of the Turkish attitude to Congress and the archbishop's apparent enthusiasm for the Soviet proposal for an international conference.
What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have to bring a new moment-tum to the talks? In particular, for example, is it true that the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers will meet in Brussels with Dr. Kissinger in the next 10 days? If so, are we to be involved?
Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to repeat that not only do the British Government rule out partition as being a solution which would help but in my conversations in Geneva and subsequently with them the Turkish and Greek Foreign Ministers said that they rule out partition as an effective solution for the problems
1378
of Cyprus. I hope that that is still their policy.
On the question of the refugees, I was conscious that I should appear to be succumbing to pressure from someone. But this was a no-win situation. If I had resisted the evacuation of the refugees I should have been told that I was holding them as political hostages. Therefore, I had to take the decision which I thought was right, and, having seen the conditions for myself, despite the misrepresentations, I still think that it was the right thing to do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation in the island is fraught with danger and we must all be careful about the way in which we approach it.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in indicating that in my talks with Dr. Kissinger it was agreed that he would meet in Brussels the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey. I shall not be personally associated with that, but there will be representation in Brussels at that time. I hope to have a very early meeting with Dr. Kissinger immediately after my return from Moscow in about 10 days' time, when we shall be able, I hope, again to concert our policies.
Mr. Atkinson: Although my right hon. Friend could not have resisted the evacuation of the Turkish refugees, he could have prevented the Turkish Government from resettling them in the northern territories of the island. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] In the ways which have been suggested. I hope that the House will have a chance of debating some of these matters, which may prevent exacerbating the situation.
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his attitude on the question of non-intervention in the Clerides-Denktash talks? Does he agree that it will be virtually impossible to achieve a political settlement and a peaceful solution in the talks if they are based on the concept of ethnic separation and geographical partition? Therefore, if federal government will not lead to a peaceful solution for the island, is it not time to consider recalling the Geneva Conference so that further elements can be introduced as a means of intervening in what must become a deadlock between the Cypriot negotiators?
Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend's analysis, which is a pessimistic one, may

1379
turn out to be right because, as I said in my statement, the progress of the talks is extremely slow and I cannot pretend that I am satisfied with them. I remind the House that they began only on 14th January. But both sides are loth to move precisely because of the difficulty which my hon. Friend thinks I should try to overcome; namely, their fear of each other and desire for ethnic separation.
This is an intractable problem. If I thought that a return to Geneva would help, I should, subject to the views of the Turkish and Greek Governments, be happy to continue to discuss it. I have already made clear that I should be willing to assist in any forum, either there or in the United Nations, if the Government came to the conclusion that that would be helpful.
However, the talks in Cyprus are going on under the chairmanship of the United Nations, and Mr. Weckmann is the United Nations representative there. When I talked with Dr. Waldheim last Saturday, we discussed a formal intervention by the United Nations. We shall keep the idea in mind, but the timing is not just yet.
Mr. Spicer: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the implications of this matter go very much wider and that we must all be very disturbed to hear today of the possibility of the Turks, at least temporarily, withdrawing their forces from NATO? Therefore, I wonder what steps the NATO Council is taking to involve itself in this matter.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the last 20 years the Turkish-Cypriot minority have behaved in a most exemplary fashion, often under extreme provocation—for example, during the EOKA troubles, in 1963, and again in 1974, when the final intervention took place. The same applies—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees—to the Turkish Government. Their position in 1963, in particular, was extremely difficult. At a time when there were pressures on them to intervene with military force they did not do so. The circumstances in 1974 virtually forced them into that position, and we should bear that in mind.
Mr. Callaghan: I do not think I can debate those issues with the hon. Gentleman.
1380
I was informed shortly before coming to the House—and I have had no opportunity to check it—that the Turkish Prime Minister has said that Turkey has no intention of withdrawing from the military side of NATO. As to the other issues, this problem, as many others, has a great deal of history, and on the whole, if I have any influence, I would prefer to get the communities to see how they can live together in future, rather than apportion praise or blame for the past.
Mr. Faulds: Has Mr. Clerides or Mr. Denktash made representations to Her Majesty's Government about the unacceptability of arrangements for the use of the sovereign bases in Cyprus by the Americans? Is my right hon. Friend aware how dangerous such arrangements would be to our relations with the Arab countries?
Mr. Callaghan: I am not aware of any such arrangements or proposals. None has been made to me.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government propose to assist in exploring the possibility put forward by Mr. Denktash of the internationalisation of Nicosia airport and its administration by a neutral administrator? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Turkish Government have yet made any definitive response in the context of compensation for damage suffered by British nationals and whether in principle they accept liability subject to proof of damage and quantum?
Mr. Callaghan: When I had my discussion with Dr. Waldheim last Saturday he had put forward an ingenious proposal for handling the administration of Nicosia airport, but I have not yet been informed whether it has been accepted. That decision is now with the Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders. I have not had any response from the Turkish Government on the question of compensation and liability. There is an office to which claimants are directed, which I believe is in the Ministry of Finance—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes, I will give him particulars—where people can register their claims, but so far there has been no admission of liability.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I accept my right hon. Friend's concern, which we all share, for the distress of all the refugees and his wise decision on humanitarian grounds to evacuate the Turkish Cypriots from Episkopi. Is not the primary concern of the British Government to look after those refugees who are in the sovereign base areas and to seek to get them resettled as quickly as possible in view of the criticisms and difficulties which face the British Government? What about the new section of Famagusta which is virtually a ghost town? Could we not put pressure on the Turkish Government to relax military operations there and allow the Greek Cypriots to get back into the houses?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not believe that there are any refugees in the western sovereign base area, but there are in the eastern sovereign base area of Famagusta. I wish that part of it would be released so that Greek Cypriot refugees could return. The Turkish administration is in no doubt about the views of Her Majesty's Government and others on this matter.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that up to a few days before the Government made the welcome announcement that the Turks would be allowed to go where they wanted, as can any other refugees. I received letters saying that that was impossible on political grounds because it would interfere with political arrangements? The letters were not confidential. I commend on humane grounds what the right hon. Gentleman said, but will he confirm that under international law we have no power to keep people anywhere against their will should they wish to go somewhere else once they have become refugees in our base? I completely support what the right hon. Gentleman said about partition. Does he not agree that the only way to prevent de facto partition is for both sides to get together and hammer out a federal solution?
Mr. Callaghan: It is true that we had no right to hold any refugees. The difficulty was that they could not go back to their own homes. I must confess that I modified my view between August and February. At the start I hoped that Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides would move fast enough to enable the problem of the
1382
refugees—whether Greek or Turkish—to be solved. It became clear that that was not to be, and I had to intervene when I saw the conditions under which the refugees were living. Of course, we have no right to determine where they should go once we have taken the decision that they should be free to leave the area. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to express an opinion at this stage about constitutional arrangements. Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash should get down to this problem as soon as they can and decide on what basis they propose to live together, having excluded—as both have done—the idea of partition.
Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the commander and the troops of the United Nations forces have a clear mandate as to their rôle? Does he agree that, whereas previously they had a quasi-police function between two indigenous communities, they are now faced with a major invading army and their rôle in that situation must be different? Are they clear about this?
Mr. Callaghan: There have been discussions about the nature of their mandate, but I cannot answer that question offhand. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will try to give him a detailed answer.
Sir John Rodgers: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement. I was in Cyprus three weeks ago and had talks with Mr. Clerides, Mr. Denktash and Archbishop Makarios. It was generally agreed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the best hope of progress was talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, and that was agreed by the archbishop. Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on why there is a deadlock in the talks? Progress was made rapidly at one stage but there now seems to be deadlock. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the Turks to release Famagusta so that 60,000 Greek Cypriots can return to the town? Will he express an opinion on whether action by the American Government in withdrawing arms aid to Turkey will help or hinder a possible solution?
Mr. Callaghan: In reply to the last part of the question, that is a matter between the United States and Turkey, and I do not think it would be helpful,

1383
or indeed proper, for me to express a view on something that is not my responsibility.
As to why the talks have been held up, there has been a dispute about Nicosia airport, which was referred to earlier in this exchange, and that has not been settled. There has been no serious discussion yet on the future constitution. The question of the refugees has reached the stage where there have been discussions about Famagusta, without agreement to open up the port, and there has been the proposal that 5,000 Greek refugees should return behind the Turkish lines, which on the face of it is not very promising given the degree of suspicion between the two communities.
Our powers in this matter are limited unless the House wishes me to embark upon a course of action that would bring down on my head severe criticism. We are confined to making representations and making our position clear. If I am cautious in what I say publicly in the House, that should not necessarily be taken as the degree of caution I exercise in private conversation. Those concerned are aware of our anxiety and our feelings that what it is right to do should be done, and I will continue in that way.

NORTHERN IRELAND
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I have today published a third discussion paper in the series leading up to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention which is to consider
"what provision for the Government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
This third discussion paper covers the sharing of responsibility in government, describes the present structure of government in Northern Ireland including local government and public bodies, identifies some of the main features of possible future patterns of government, and draws attention to how some of these matters have been arranged in other countries which have community problems.
1384
I would remind the House that the Constitutional Convention is entirely a forum for the people of Northern Ireland. It lays on them the task of recommending what form of government is likely to command the most widespread acceptance there. It offers the opportunity for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to consider what system of government by consent will prove workable in a society divided as it is in Northern Ireland. It will be for those representatives to come together for Northern Ireland and put their views to the Government and to this House for decision.
I would add this. All experience goes to show that no system of government will work unless there is widespread and genuine participation in it. I re-emphasise what I have said before; namely, that
"the direction of public affairs can and must be shared by those from all parts of the community who are concerned for the good of all the people in Northern Ireland. What form this sharing and partnership could best take to gain widespread acceptance will be a matter for the Convention to discuss".
I shall be announcing the name of the chairman in due course.
I think the House will also wish to know of developments since my statement on 14th January. The policy I then outlined contained the elements which could bring an end to violence and set in motion a process of discussion. I sought to get away from the daily catalogue of violence and open the door to a new situation in which discussions and political activity could take place in a constructive and peaceful atmosphere. I also sought to bring about progressively a change in the rôle and commitments of the Army and said that if there were a genuine and sustained cessation of violence I would gradually release all detainees.
These remain the Government's aims.
I also said that I would continue to welcome constructive discussion with members of the prorogued Assembly and that my officials have been, and are, available to hear the views of those in Northern Ireland who have something to contribute to the solution of its problems, including those organisations which were deproscribed by me in May last year and which are free to take part in genuine political activity within the law.

1385
Ministers have had meetings with elected representatives both at Westminster and in Northern Ireland to discuss not only matters arising from my statement but also the economic and employment situation in Northern Ireland, which is a matter of major concern to me and should be to all.
My officials have had a number of meetings with various organisations to follow up the statement I made to this House and the publication of the Gardiner Report. There have been a number of meetings with the Provisional Sinn Fein. I wanted to ensure that the Government's policy was clearly understood. Indeed, it would have been quite wrong if I had not arranged for the Government's views to be fully explained and clarified. The future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. There is no question of bartering their future away. I should make it clear that I have received indications that the Government's policy was not being understood and also that there was a continued interest in trying to bring under control what has now become worrying but sporadic violence.
My officials have been under very clear instructions to explain the Government's policy and to outline and clarify the arrangements that might be made to ensure that any cease-fire did not break down. Explanation has been the key to the meetings. The difficulties in communicating and explaining carefully and fully the Government's policy, not only to the Provisional Sinn Fein but also to other organisations, are very considerable. These difficulties have not been made any the less by rumour and speculation, much of which has been both untrue and unhelpful.
The Government's policy in relation to violence itself is clear. It is that the actions of the security forces will be related to the level of activity that might occur.
The security forces will do their utmost to bring criminals to justice before the courts, and they are having very considerable success. In the past few days, 34 people have been charged with serious offences, five with murder and two with attempted murder. Nearly a quarter of a ton of explosives have been seized and about half the explosive devices placed
1386
have been neutralised by Army technical officers. I cannot accept a situation where lives are at risk through failure to deal with a resumption of violence and sectarian murders. I have, therefore, in relation to acts of recent violence, signed seven interim custody orders during the past few days.
The situation in Northern Ireland is both more fluid and much less clear-cut than has been the case for a long time. There is a different attitude in all sections of the community.
People want to see an end to violence, but they want this to be a genuine, and not a temporary, change in the situation. My duty is clear. I must find out whether there can be a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, but equally I must deal with continuing violence from wherever it comes. I shall do both.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and hon. Members will want to read the third discussion paper with great care. It is a useful document, and I do not think it is a harsh criticism to say that it contains nothing very startling.
The House is well aware that the right hon. Gentleman has had a difficult situation to handle in the last six weeks, and, if I may say so, he has handled it very well. Nobody wants to make his position any more difficult. Nevertheless, I am sure he will agree that there is an obvious danger if the meetings with the Sinn Fein go on and on.
In view of what the Secretary of State said about rumour and speculation, I wonder whether there is perhaps too much secrecy about these meetings. Would it perhaps clear the air if further meetings—if there are to be any more meetings—were rather more open?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say in what respects the Sinn Fein still misunderstands the Government's policy and in what respects further explanation is still necessary? We are all glad to learn of the successes of the security forces in the last few days. Will he say to what extent he believes that the IRA has been able to use this period to regroup and to move arms around? Will he assure us that the security forces have not been inhibited in any way in dealing with any regrouping and movement of arms? Finally, does he know

1387
whether any of the recent violence has been centrally organised, and, if so, does he agree that this merely increases the resolve and determination of our people not to be intimidated by violence?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's initial remarks. The document which has been published today is in accord with the first two documents. When the Convention meets there will be problems in regard to arrangements and information. Those attending the Convention will find the facts usefully set out in the documents, including factual information about local government, area boards, and the problem of getting the community as a whole involved. The documents deal with important factual matters.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned secrecy. I think it right. I have thought a lot about the matter. It would not be right to say whom my officials have met. There have been meetings with the Provisional Sinn Fein and others on the other side of the community, but they have taken place in Northern Ireland and there has been no question about safe conduct. I think that indicates the nature of the meetings.
Perhaps I should say a word in clarification of what is meant by our policy. It would be easy to talk about a "genuine and sustained cessation of violence". The question is: what does the phrase mean practically? On these matters I am very much led by my security advisers. It is no good my pretending that four months' cease-fire in which arms and detonators are moved about, and in which there is regrouping constitutes any genuine and sustained cessation of violence. The fact that there is no noise looks as though there is not violence, but violence might be being prepared. We all know the kneecapping has been going on in various areas. I want to cover the whole situation because I must not allow myself to be taken in by the phrase "genuine and sustained cessation of violence". There are practical reasons why these matters should be looked at, even though they may be passed on second hand, because just to use the phrase "genuine and sustained cessation of violence" is not enough. I hope that I have clarified that
1388
point. I am aware of the dangers. I am gratified by the support that I feel from all parts of the communities. In this situation, as in perhaps more difficult ones from a security point of view, I am also gratified by the firm support that I get from the security authorities.
Mr. Molyneaux: As the way would appear to be clear for the setting up of the Convention, may I ask the Secretary of State to do his best to arrange for the elections to be held before Easter in view of the obvious difficulties which would arise if they were to be held just prior to the EEC referendum?
Now that the right hon. Gentleman and his officials have taken great care to ensure that the Government's policy is understood by the Provisional Sinn Fein, may we take it that there will be no need for further meetings with the political arm of the IRA, bearing in mind the damaging effects of the rumours and untruths which inevitably surround such talks?
Mr. Rees: I am very much aware of the situation regarding the date. I shall have to announce the name of the chairman, and I hope to do that soon. I am aware, and will certainly take account, of the EEC referendum. It is most important to get the preparatory work done. It is not a question of merely explaining the policy side. It has been borne in on me by my security advisers that we must be clear about what is meant by "genuine, sustained cessation of violence". I am keen that the meaning of that phrase is explained and passed through, because it is an important anchor for all that I want to do. It must be clear for the benefit of the security forces particularly and people in general what I understand by that. Overall, I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who represents a large part of the community in Northern Ireland, that I understand the views and the fears of the community. Perhaps I understand them more now than ever I did. There are people in all parts of Ireland—I am not referring to the Church men—who like to give an indication that they are in the game, but the large number of people who are satisfying their amour propre in that way are not. Matters reached a pitch in Belfast where it seemed that everybody was negotiating

1389
except me. I know who is helping me. Therefore, I know how to evaluate some of the stuff that is given to the Press.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is the overwhelming wish of the House that the initiative for the Constitutional Convention will be a success? Is he aware that the best service that could be rendered to him, having made a clear statement, would be for the communities in Northern Ireland not to read into it what was not said and to infer from that what was not also said? That has been one of the diseases in Northern Ireland with ministerial statements during the last 15 years. If it is any consolation, as an expatriate and half Irishman. I understood clearly what the right hon. Gentleman said and found myself in full support.
Does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that all sections of the community with which he has come into contact are prepared to support this initiative for elections to lead to a Constitutional Convention? There are those who are opposed to it or would boycott it. Will he at the appropriate time make clear who they are?
What are the conditions which have to be satisfied before the right hon. Gentleman is able to announce the date for the holding of those elections?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in wishing to represent and see represented all shades of opinion, he is merely giving effect, quite properly, to the views taken by Lord Kilbrandon in another context, on which we hope the Government will not have double standards?
Mr. Rees: On the last matter about Kilbrandon, the whole question of devolved government has emerged over many years going back to the days when the Liberal Party was in power. One factor regarding Northern Ireland which is not present in the two other parts of the United Kingdom is the split society there, culturally at least, which exists in a way that I had never imagined. It is a factor that we must take into account in the method that we are trying to follow for getting the views of the people of Northern Ireland. That was the reason for the Convention which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) often proposed to one of my predecessors.
1390
I remember listening to him saying that it was up to the Government at Westminster at the end of the day to decide.
If Kilbrandon is talking of devolved government, it is not talking of the particular problems of Northern Ireland with its history and culture. Many sections in the community will play a part, and I am sure that the main political parties will play their part. The difficulty is that those who have been used to getting what they want by violence will find it extremely difficult to trust the ballot box. But I am sure that the major political parties will play their part. They can speak for themselves.
Regarding the holding of the elections and the conditions, I do not want to be put in the position that we were in, before, when a date was announced and, for a variety of reasons, it had to be postponed. I will give a month's notice. I want to feel that the people of Northern Ireland can make up their minds calmly about the kind of government that they want in that part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the more he talks, either directly or through officials, to as many interested bodies as possible in Northern Ireland and maintains that a diminution of violence is to be accepted, we should not be in too much of a hurry to bring such talks to an end? Will he tell us whether he and the security forces are able to distinguish between acts of violence which are obviously provisional IRA official acts, if one may call them that, and the acts of those who are loosely termed cowboys? Will he also tell us whether, because he has resorted again to ICOs, he will make an interim statement on that part of the Gardiner Committee's Report which refers to the problems of dealing with people interned in that manner?
Mr. Rees: The Gardiner Committee's Report is long, detailed and valuable. I am looking at it with the aid of my legal advisers. I will make a report on that aspect as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will recall that the report was clear that there was a place for detention, given the problems of Northern Ireland, and that the ending of it was a political matter. That is what I tried to indicate

1391
on 14th January when I made my initial statement.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words about the diminution of violence. Of course that is right. But it must not be the ending of violence at any price. I must look at that matter very carefully. It is right that without violence people would not be driven back to their tribal homes—I say that in no derogatory sense—to which many of them belong.
Regarding distinguishing between acts of violence, I choose my words carefully and give the security advice that I have had. There is no doubt that during the cessation of violence—the cease-fire, not a truce—it was clear that it could be turned on and off. There are breakaway groups. It is sometimes not possible for me to be advised clearly on who is responsible for what. Even if we were to obtain a genuine cessation of violence, there might be more splinter groups, because people who have been used to using the gun for four or five years find it difficult to break away from that kind of activity.
Mr. Powell: Further on the Gardiner Report, does the Secretary of State recognise the urgency of an early announcement on the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee which are highly relevant to the current position? In that context will he consider the possibility of dealing, if necessary separately, with those recommendations which are uncontroversial and could be implemented quickly?
Mr. Rees: I promise to do that. My legal advisers are looking closely at the legal aspects of those parts which need an amendment of legislation. They need to look at that in detail. I should like to mention one other point underlying the Gardiner recommendations about prison administration and prison accommodation. I am faced, as was the previous administration, with poor prison accommodation for dealing with prisoners in the way in which we understand it should done over here. At the moment, my officials are, in a different context, going through planning appeals and so on with regard to the needs of the new prisons. People feel strongly when a prison is built in their area. As much as I need new prisons so that I can have a proper
1392
policy, I cannot move in advance of the prison accommodation.
Mr. Fitt: I welcome this document in so far as it restates Government policy that the evolution of any future political structure in Northern Ireland must enjoy the support of both sections and communities in Northern Ireland.
On the question of negotiations which the Secretary of State has had with the elected representatives in Northern Ireland and with the political parties, can he give us any indication as to what is the attitude of those parties towards power sharing, participation and partnership in any future Government? Has any one of those parties or any number of those parties stated clearly that they will not take part in partnership in government with the minority in Northern Ireland?
From the discussions that the Secretary of State has had with the Sinn Fein, is the Secretary of State now in a position to say whether he has clarified once and for all what is its attitude to this Government? Will there be any further discussions? Does he recognise that the attitude of some of the major political parties in Northern Ireland towards non-acceptance of partnership in government is leading to a continuation of violence and is some sort of justification to the men of violence for carrying on with their campaign?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about Government policy.
With regard to the views of the elected representatives, my hon. Friend puts me in some difficulty, because I think it is for parties to speak for themselves rather than through me. As I read the feelings in the communities in recent weeks, my strong feeling is that those who will work for the good of a united Ireland, from whatever community they come, will do more for Northern Ireland in the long run than all the feuding and fighting that has gone on over 50 years. It is in that context of Northern Ireland that I say to my hon. Friend that I see the value of power sharing.
I have given my views with regard to the Siam Fein and the practical aspects of what might be at the end of the day a genuine cessation of violence. Those

1393
practicalities concern the men of violence, and at second hand I presume that what my officials say gets through. Those are not subjects I talk about with the elected representatives.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming the Secretary of State's assurance that his decision when to start a general release of detainees must be governed by security advice, may I ask whether he thinks that there might be something to be said for fixing a definite period of time free of terrorism which must elapse before such a happy outcome can begin? After all, when we speak of playing cat and mouse it is very often the terrorist who plays cat and mouse—not the Secretary of State.
Mr. Rees: With regard to the question of cat-and-mouse bargaining, that is a game which I do not wish to play. That is why I said that everybody must be clear what is meant by "genuine sustained cessation of violence". I would not want to set a date, because we could have a period free of violence for a time when it looked on the surface as if all was well but if we went beneath it we should know that a great deal was going on.
On the question of the detainees and the cat-and-mouse game, in terms of the executive releases the republican candidates are not appearing before the commissioners at the moment. I do not want to be involved in a cat-and-mouse game. I have put forward Government policy as to how we can end it. That does not mean that people will not be released in between for other reasons, on both sides of the community fence, but not in the cat-and-mouse aspect. I have to take humanitarian aspects into account from time to time. However, overall the way to end detention is clear and simple. Let us stop violence in Northern Ireland. Let us stop the killing. There was the instance last week of the killing of the ATC boy of 16, whose father spoke so bravely after the death of his son and said he did not feel angry against anybody in the community. I could not have said that. Then there was the murder of the young boy down in Forkhill, who was blown up. In the face of that, for God's sake let us stop it, and then we can end detention. The killing of the RUC sergeant last week is an equally bad example.
Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that success in Northern Ireland is not measurable in any way in terms of the number of people gaoled or interned? Does he agree further that those people who see the military defeat of the IRA as being the final solution to the problem of Northern Ireland might just as well attempt to plough the ocean? Will he agree finally that the unbending of the majority community towards the minority in a democratic manner is the ultimate solution, and the only solution? To the extent that the Ulster Unionist Members help us towards that, they will thereby solve not only the problems of the minority in Northern Ireland but precisely their own problems as well.
Mr. Rees: I do not see the job that I do in any numerical way, not only with regard to detainees. It is not measurable. That is why I now say that I have a feeling that things are different, but I could not quantify it. I am looking not for victory but for peace. But I am not looking for a phoney peace. I am looking for a genuine, sustained cessation of violence. That is what I have to measure, not numerically. I have to measure what can be done to see that it is achieved. The best way for the communities in Northern Ireland to work together is to share power for the good of Northern Ireland. I believe that can be done after five years of what, in effect, is war.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that the Provisional Irish Republican Army has publicly announced that it was responsible for the dastardly shooting of the police sergeant and also for the serious wounding of another police constable? Will he confirm today that those policemen were coming from protection duty at the home of a prominent member of the SDLP? Will he also confirm that the SDLP is the one political party in Northern Ireland with elected representatives which does not support the police, and which at its conference refused a call to support the police? Will he tell us whether he was the member of the Government who authorised the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to say at that conference that the Government had made up their mind and would announce the release of 100 detainees?
Mr. Rees: With regard to the killing of the policeman, whoever was responsible

1395
—whether directly, or authorised, or otherwise—it was a dastardly deed. The security forces do not need my permission—they know they have it—to seek out whoever did it and bring them to justice. That is true of any other killing in Northern Ireland, all of which—to use the words we have used so many times before—sows the seeds of hatred in the future.
With regard to support for the police, my responsibility is to the Government. I know of the changes that have taken place. I know that the only way to reduce the rôle of the Army is for the police to play a larger rôle. The police in Northern Ireland have my firm support. I speak for the Government. I cannot speak for anybody else.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether those men were on official duty. They had called recently at the home of a member of the SDLP. I know, in his individual case, how sad he feels about it, and I know of the support which he gives to the police, which is different from the political aspects about which I think the hon. Gentleman is talking.

BILL PRESENTED
  AIR TRAVEL RESERVE FUND
  Mr. Secretary Shore, supported by Mr. Secretary Callaghan, Mrs. Secretary Williams, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Dr. John Gilbert, Mr. Eric Deakins, and Mr. S. Clinton Davis presented a Bill to make provision for establishing a fund from which payments may be made in certain cases in respect of losses or liabilities incurred by customers of air travel organisers in consequence of the inability of the air travel organisers to meet their financial commitments in respect of certain descriptions of travel contracts, and for establishing an agency to hold, manage and apply the fund; to provide for requiring contributions from air travel organisers for the purposes of the fund; to provide for loans to the agency by the Secretary of State; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

  ABOLITION OF PEERAGE
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide (except in respect of members of the Royal Family) for the extinction of all titles attaching peerages, for the cessation on death or statutory renunciation of all hereditary rights to attend as a Member of the House of Lords, and for the appointment of Senators as Members of the House, including the conversion of present life Peers.
  This is a very modest measure, and it may be that some of my hon. Friends will say that it is too modest. When I sought on 11th June last year to introduce an almost identical measure, it was attacked by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on the spurious and irrelevant ground that it was a piece of creeping republicanism. Since any question of republicanism is an entirely separate question of great importance in itself, for the avoidance of doubt the wording of this Bill specifically excludes it from the scope of its operations. The Bill is not concerned with republicanism.
  I should say straight away what else the Bill is not concerned with, because it is not concerned with the merits or demerits of the existence of a second Chamber. In past years, every time that anyone has attempted to investigate the peerage, his inquiries have been bedevilled by the overlapping but distinct question of whether there should be a second Chamber.
  The object of this Bill is simply to expunge the archaic and ridiculous feudal titles which most Government supporters regard with derision if not complete indifference. In one minor respect it can be said to impinge on the question of a second Chamber, though not on the question of its existence, because it also seeks to remove the hereditary right to sit in the second Chamber so long as that second Chamber continues to exist.
  No other modern society confers titles with the pretentious nomenclature of duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. In almost every case the creation of such titles lapsed no later than the end of the First World War. Some countries abandoned them many years before. To take a pertinent example, the French did so a long time before the 1914–18 war. What

  1397
  is more, in the last few days President Giscard d'Estaing has said that he intends to abolish the titles which survive from French monarchical days when they were created in large numbers, some 1,500 of which are believed to survive.
  It is clear that for a number of years there has been a tacit, unexpressed understanding between our two leading political parties that no further hereditary titles should be created, at any rate outside the scope of the Royal Family. None has been created since the Resignation Honours List of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, now Lord Home of Hirsel, and none was recommended during the time that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister.
  That contrasts with the situation with regard to baronetcies after 1951. The House will recollect that between 1945 and 1951 the Attlee Government, most daringly, abandoned the creation of baronetcies. When the Conservatives returned to office in 1951, they resumed the creation of these titles as well as continuing to create hereditary titles on an ever-increasing scale which reached its climax during the Macmillan years. But, that apart, the system has been falling into gradual disuse.
  No non-Royal dukes have been created since 1900, and even that one was for a person marrying into the Royal Family. No marquess has been created since 1936. Even in the case of Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors, who by tradition have been entitled on retirement to earldoms, since the Second World War there have been only two cases of each—Attlee and Eden, and Jowitt and Kilmuir. It is clear that this is a system which slowly has been dying.
  The ridiculous situation is that, although the system of creating new peerages has, to all intents and purposes ceased, apart from these absurd life peerages, there are a sufficient number of them in existence to survive for many centuries. We are left with a situation where the peerage, far from becoming more democratic, year by year becomes less, and where its members are few enough in number to constitute an élite and not sufficient in number to be totally insignificant socially.
  If this measure passed into law, one consequence would be that the political imbalance in the other place would be
  1398
  redressed quickly. As title holders died off having no rights of inheritance to pass on, the balance that we have always known in this century of one party governing the House of Lords might reasonably be expected to alter.
  I hope that my choice of the word "senator", which is in many ways of even greater antiquity than that of "peer", will not deter hon. Members from supporting my Bill. Although it is of greater antiquity, it has democratic connotations by virtue of its association with a number of elected chambers. As I have said already, my Bill has nothing to do with whether we want the continuance of another Chamber. For what it is worth, I feel that there is a marginal case for a wholly consultative Chamber with no powers save that of textual revision. But that is a matter of secondary importance.
  As I have also said already, the Bill is not concerned with whether the monarchy shall continue to exist, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I have incorporated words to put that on one side. If any question concerning the monarchy arises, I cannot believe that so radical a constitutional departure could be made without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people, just as this Government will not make any change in the British constitution with regard to the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people.
  Mr. John Stokes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Does the hon. Gentleman rise to oppose the motion?
  Mr. Stokes: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I do not believe that such a root and branch reform as this Bill proposes should be introduced in this way by a Private Member.
  More fundamentally, the Bill is objectionable in itself in that it seeks to make a violent, almost revolutionary, change in the constitution of this ancient Kingdom. The constitution has been refined and handed down to us over the centuries. It is in part monarchic, in part aristocratic and in part democratic. I know that in the end this House usually gets its own way and that the democratic principle is finally supreme. But the

  1399
  checks and balances in our constitution are also important and play their part in our national life.
  Like the monarchy, the House of Lords provides for continuity in British politics. With its roots in the distant past, it gives a much needed stability to our constitution. In an age where we have far too many changes, the Lords themselves, by their very presence, represent something abiding and unchanging.
  There is a further problem in the Bill. Our present system of two-Chamber government works—and works so well as to be the envy of the world, and that is so, however much a few hon. Members opposite may laugh. Thousands of people come every year to see it at work. The Bill proposes the appointment of senators. The difficulties entailed in such a proposal were fully explored in 1968, when the matter was last debated at large in the House.
  I believe that the strength of the Lords is due in part to the very illogicality of their selection—due perhaps to the workings of an inscrutable Providence, which produces a level of competence among hereditary peers which is quite as high as, and is often higher than, in this place, where we all arrive by a somewhat different route.
  The Bill would have the effect of further isolating the monarchy, and in this connection I deplore the fact that since 1964 no further hereditary peerages have been created. Whatever the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr Lee) may have said, this realm is not a republic and the hereditary peers support the hereditary monarchy. We must not make the mistake in this House of thinking that we are the only popular people. The English people love a lord and have a great love for the other place.
  The great virtue of the other place—or at least of those who entered it because their fathers were there before them—is that they were trained for the position for an early age. They were born to it, and they bear its responsibilities gladly,
  both in peace and in war, where their record is second to none. They never have to play to the gallery but can speak their minds fully—and that is important in what is otherwise an almost wholly democratic society, dominated by the media and obsessed with the trivial, the trendy and the so-callecl progressive.
  I believe that the ordinary people whom we in this House claim to represent still look up to the aristocracy of this nation and consider them a vital part of our constitution. I believe that the age of chivalry is not dead. The Lords are considered honest, brave and true, and many ordinary people would prefer to be ruled by a 14th earl than by a 14th Mr. So-and-so. There is no feeling whatever of Watergate about the Lords. They provide colour and pageantry, and remind us of our glorious past in this somewhat drab epoch. Their close association is with the land, and people like to see estates passing from father to son.
  It is said that we live in the age of the common man, and those who hear this debate may feel like echoing that. The Bill would make us commoner still. The strength of this country lies in our traditions and in our high standards, and even hon. Members opposite, who may laugh now, if they by some extraordinary turn of fortune's wheel are moved to the other place, quickly develop a mellowness and independence which go hand in hand with their new status and privileges.
  Finally, I believe that this Bill would upset the balance of the constitution, would deprive the nation of the unstinted services of a valuable section of our society, and would make a sudden change which is neither necessary nor desired. I hope, therefore, that the House will deny leave for the Bill to be brought in.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 168.

  Division No. 83.]

  AYES

  [4.45 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Archer, Peter

  Bates, Alf

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Buchanan, Richard

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Booth, Albert

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Campbell, Ian

  Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  John, Brynmor

  Roper, John

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Judd, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Cronin, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Silverman, Julius

  Deakins, Eric

  Kerr, Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Small, William

  Doig, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edge, Geoff

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Litterick, Tom

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)

  English, Michael

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thompson, George

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Tomlinson, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Newsns, Stanley

  Ward, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watkins, David

  Golding, John

  Ovenden, John

  Watkinson, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Padley, Walter

  Watt, Hamish

  Graham, Ted

  Palmer, Arthur

  Welsh, Andrew

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Pardoe, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Park, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Penhaligon, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Hardy, Peter

  Perry, Ernest

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hatton, Frank

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Radice, Giles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

  Reid, George

  Mr. Gwilym Roberts and

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Holland, Philip

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bell, Ronald

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torboy)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Benyon, W.

  Elliott, Sir William

  James, David

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Brittan, Leon

  Farr, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Buck, Antony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Budgen, Nick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Channon, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lloyd, Ian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gorst, John

  Luce, Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Clegg, Walter

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Cockcroft, John

  Grist, Ian

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Grylls, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Cope, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Madel, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Corrie, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marten, Neil

  Costain, A. P.

  Hannam, John

  Mather, Carol

  Critchley, Julian

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maude, Angus

  Crouch, David

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  1402

  1403

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Stainton, Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stokes, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moate, Roger

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Molyneaux, James

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Tebbit, Norman

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Morgan, Geraint

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Morrison, Peter (Chester)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wakeham, John

  Mudd, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Neave, Airey

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Walters, Dennis

  Neubert, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Normanton, Tom

  Scott, Nicholas

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wells, John

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Percival, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Younger, Hon George

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Speed, Keith

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rathbone, Tim

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Michael Brotherton.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I observe that no one declared an interest in that discussion.

OREDRS OF THE DAY
  HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
    New Clause 1

      LIMITATION OF RENT INCREASES UNDER RENT AGREEMENT WHERE NO RENT IS REGISTERED FOR DWELLING-HOUSE UNDER REGULATED TENANCY
      ' .—(1) Where no rent is registered for a dwelling-house under a regulated tenancy (whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act), the rent payable in any contractual period beginning after such commencement may not be increased, by virtue of any rent agreement (whether made before or after such commencement), above the appropriate maximum amount specified in this section.
      (2) In the case of any rent agreement which took effect before the commencement of this Act, the maximum amount to which the rent may be increased in terms of subsection (1) above is, for a rental period which begins—

      (a) during the year beginning with the commencement of this Act, or

      (b) during a subsequent year beginning with an anniversary of such commencement,

      the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before the relevant year referred to in head (a) or (b) above, was payable by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment, plus £1·50 per week.
      (3) In the case of any rent agreement which takes effect on or after the commencement of this Act, the maximum amount to which the rent may be increased in terms of subsection (1) above is, for a rental period which begins—

      (a) during the first year of the period beginning with the date when the rent agreement takes effect, or

      (b) during a subsequent year beginning with an anniversary of that date,

      the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before the relevant year referred to in head (a) or (b) above, was payable by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment, plus £1·50 per week.
      (4) There shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section such part of any increase of rent (in a case where any rates in respect of the dwelling-house are borne by the landlord) as corresponds to any increase in the rates so borne, ascertained in accordance with Schedule 4 to the 1971 Act.
      (5) Any rent agreement made before or after the commencement of this Act which purports to increase the rent payable thereunder at any
      1406
      time above that permitted at that time under this section shall have effect to increase the rent to the extent so permitted but no further.
      (6) Paragraph 6A of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule.
      (7) The Secretary of State may by order substitute, for the sum of £1·50 mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) above, a sum other than that sum.
      (8) An order under subsection (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under that subsection.
      (9) In this section, "rent agreement" means a rent agreement with a tenant having security of tenure within the meaning of section 42(1) of the 1972 Act, and, unless the context otherwise requires, any expression used in this section which is also used in Part III or IV of the 1971 Act shall have the same meaning as in those Parts.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.51 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It will be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 25 and 27.
      Mr. Brown: Now that we have ensured that the aristocracy can sleep easy tonight, perhaps we can get on with this important business.
      The new clause is lengthy, but it sets out a simple proposition. It and the amendments grouped with it are connected by the principle that rents in the private sector should not be permitted to rise by more than £1·50 per week in any year. The new clause applies this limit to rent agreements and the new sub-paragraph (4) which Amendment No. 17 would add to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 applies it to registered rents which are being phased. There is one small difference between the two categories—where a registered rent is being paid, the service element is not to count as part of the increase, in the same way that it is discounted when the amount of each phased increase is calculated. This cannot be applied to rent agreements because no such separate amount is identified in their case.

      1407
      The amendments also give the Secretary of State power to vary the amount of the maximum increase. It is clearly possible that inflation over the next few years might make it necessary to alter the present figure of £1·50 to keep it in line with changing money values.
      There are two issues involved in this group of amendments—the need for a maximum limit on rent increases; and the level at which that maximum should be set. We need a maximum limit because, as a result of the automatic decontrol programme begun by the 1972 Act, several thousand controlled tenancies have had fair rents registered. It is inevitable that fair rents will in some cases be very much higher than rents which may not have changed very much since as long ago as 1914. It is only a fairly small percentage of rents—about 10 per cent. of registrations—which are increased by more than 75p per week with phasing applied but it is a problem which we cannot ignore.
      Housing is a basic living cost and counter-inflationary measures must bite particularly hard on such unavoidable expenditure. The whole purpose of the phasing provisions of this Bill is to make sure that necessary rent increases take place as gradually as possible so that inflation is restrained as far as it can be. In most cases division of rent increases into three phased stages reduces them to a size which is compatible with this principle but we must have a second line of defence against inflation for the small percentage of cases which do face very substantial increases. The maximum increase proposed in these amendments is the most effective way of doing this.
      5.0 p.m.
      Rents will still be able to be reregistered after three years even if the previous registered rent had not been reached because of the maximum increase and a new round of phasing would allow the rent to move gradually to a fair rent without, in all probability, involving the maximum increase. Such cases would be likely only where overall increases of the order of £300 are due to be made.
      Obviously, the level at which the maximum should be fixed is something on which everyone will have their own ideas and there can be no monopoly of
      1408
      right in such a situation. A figure of £1·50 is indeed a high figure, but there are good reasons for its being so. It is designed to confer very real benefits on those tenants who—with or without stautory phasing operating—are faced with very large increases in rent; these increases are undoubtedly a counter-inflation concern. At the same time, it is pitched high enough not to make inroads into the progression of any significant numbers of rents towards fair rent levels; they therefore are consistent with our aim to move away from historic low rents and all their attendant problems.
      As these amendments stand at present we are laying the ground for the gradual rise to a fair rents level for all regulated tenancies at the same time as conferring a very real benefit on those tenants who would otherwise face completely unacceptable rent increases. I hope therefore that the House will support me in proposing this new clause and associated amendments.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the Minister has said that this is a simple point, he will accept that the amendments are rather complex. It is unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity of discussing them in Committee. We could have gone into them more thoroughly with more notice. However, I have a few questions about them.
      First, the Minister mentioned that this is a clause which should bring some benefits to tenants. He mentioned that it covered both agreements and new registrations of rent. Will he indicate how many tenants might be affected by the new clause? I think that the number will probably be small, because obviously only where there is an increase over three years of £225 will this have any effect.
      Second, why has the Minister introduced this provision in this Bill, when I understand that there has been no similar move in the Bill that relates to England and Wales? My understanding is that registrations in England and Wales tend to be higher than they have been in Scotland, although it is difficult to make any general comparison. There has been no indication that English rents have been registered at any lower level. Why was the move made here?
      My third general question is whether the Minister does not feel that this new

      1409
      clause might undermine the principle of the rent assessment committees' work and of fair rents, because the rent assessment committees, when meeting to determine rents, bear in mind what would be a fair return for landlords after a period of three years. It would appear that this would interfere with that.
      As I have said, we have had little time to consider this proposal. Will the Minister give an undertaking—without commitment, of course—that between now and the next stage of the Bill, which will be its consideration by the House of Lords, he will give consideration to anomalies which might arise from the new clause? I say this because although it may sound fair and reasonable to impose a £1·50 per week limit on rent increases, much depends on where one starts from. If one starts from a rent of, say, £5 or £6 a week, that is obviously different from the case of starting from, say, 50p a week. Between now and the next stage of the Bill, will the Government consider whether there might not be a case for saying that the new clause should apply only to cases in which the fair rent or a reasonable percentage thereof has been established, or cases in which the rent paid was, say, £1 a week or £2 a week?
      I think that there is a danger that the clause may produce a number of anomalies in our Scottish scene, where we have some rents at a relatively high level and some at a low level. Is the Minister willing to consider the anomalies which may arise as a result of the clause?
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I quite accept that this is a small group with which we are dealing. I should not like to put precise figures on it, but it is certainly about 100. Therefore, it is not a major problem but is confined to one group, of which we know, and possibly some of the higher rented houses in fairly good areas. So I am not over-stressing the value of it. Nevertheless, we do know that it will be helpful to a small group, and we think that it is an element of justice to put a maximum limit when we have set one in the council sector, albeit it is a different sum.
      It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there is no comparable provision in the Bill that relates to England and Wales. It is to our credit that we have produced something that meets a prob-
      1410
      lem in Scotland. I do not think that it is any less significant because of that.
      I have had personal discussions, informally, with various people involved in operating rent assessment committees. I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that it will not upset the fair rents principle. We are not changing that in any way. The hon. Gentleman can take that as a firm assurance.
      The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about an undertaking. I do not think that any Government or draftsman are ever completely confident that what they are trying to do does not produce anomalies or some effects that were not foreseen. I am reasonably confident that we have got this about right, but it would be totally wrong of me to suggest that we are always perfect. I do not say that. The hon. Gentleman may have a point. I am not saying that he has, because I have not examined his suggestion in any detail. If the hon. Gentleman would care to submit any details to me, I should certainly be willing to study them with interest. But I should not like to commit myself, because I am reasonably confident that we have got it about right. I do not undertake to give the hon. Gentleman any specific assurance that we intend to alter it at the House of Lords stage.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist giving any assurance, as has been suggested, that the maximum limit should be greater where the current rent is smaller. It may, indeed, be a valid point that there is a long way for a 50p rent to go before it reaches the fair rent level, but it is in precisely these cases that a tenant is faced with much greater percentage increases in the weekly rent.
      We also have to remember that any tenant paying this kind of rent—by implication, still under rent control—is a tenant who has not changed his tenancy for the last 20 years or so, say, since 1957. The vast majority, therefore, are pensioners. Irrespective of any consideration of income, they are the very people who find it most difficult to adjust quickly to a sudden change in their rent payment, particularly when it reflects percentage increases of 300 per cent., 400 per cent., or 500 per cent. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not—I am sure that he will not—give any ground here towards

      1411
      setting a higher maximum figure where the rent is lower.
      My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that the figure was rather high. He indicated that there can be no consensus on the figure because every hon. Member will have his own idea of what the appropriate figure should be. He will, however, I am sure, concede that the figure he has chosen of £78 per annum is precisely double the figure of £39 per annum that is suggested in the Bill for the council or public sector.
      How was it that the Government fixed on a figure so markedly different from that for the public sector? What equity is it that the private tenant should be faced with a maximum figure which is double that applicable to the council tenant, especially when there is a body of evidence before us which shows consistently that private tenants have significantly lower incomes than council tenants, as hon. Members opposite are fond of stressing?
      I was also distressed to hear my hon. Friend say that the Government wanted to get away from the historic rent basis in the private sector. That is a little unfortunate, as we appear elsewhere in the Bill to be placing the council sector firmly on the historic rent basis. It will be difficult for those like myself who represent very few council tenants but a very large number of private tenants to explain to our constituents why the legal maximum figure in their case is double that for the council sector and why the figure for the council sector has been fixed on an historic rents basis whereas in their case it is thought fair and proper that we should as quickly as possible get away from that very basis.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is the other side of the argument. I did not say that I would give ground on the point that was raised. If I were to say now that I am flexible, that would be a mistake. As I am never too dogmatic, I said that if somebody suggests to me that we have done something which can stand being looked at again because it may give rise to anomalies, and if I were given evidence for that, I would look at it. I gave no assurance that I would take any action in another place.
      1412
      The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has made is quite a good one. A maximum increase of £1·50 is a lot if we are talking in terms of a rent of £1 a week. However, the level could have been anything. Some might argue that it might have been £50 per year, some might say £100, some even less. It is just what we think, on balance, is reasonable.
      I know that it is tempting to make a comparison between the private sector and the council sector, but there are so many factors that tend to make comparisons difficult. I referred to historic low rents and all their attendant problems. That is different from the phrase which tends to be used in terms of council tenants. I do not think that my hon. Friend should make too much of that phrase. In arriving at this figure we have borne in mind that rent allowances are available.
      This is usually what happens when one tries to arrive at a fair figure. I am criticised by both sides. That encourages me in my belief that we have the figure about right. I hope that the House will accept the new clause and the related amendments.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: We should be grateful for small mercies. The Under-Secretary has made it clear that he is not giving a specific assurance but that, if there are any anomalies, he is willing to look at them before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. On that basis, I am happy to recommend my hon. Friends to support the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1

      NEW SYSTEM OF RENTS FOR PUBLIC SECTOR HOUSING
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4.
      This is a drafting amendment. It is fairly insignificant and needs no further explanation.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister proposes to leave out the words:
      "have regard to the terms of their rebate scheme under section 15 of the 1972 Act".
      Section 15(1) of the 1972 Act states:
      "It shall be the duty of every local authority to bring into operation not later than 1st October 1972 a scheme for granting to persons who occupy as their homes houses to which the local authority's housing revenue account relates and which are let to them by the local authority rebates from rent, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the scheme by reference to their needs and their resources."
      The important words are:
      "by reference to their needs and their resources".
      Surely local authorities should have regard to the needs and resources of those paying rent—for example, those who are disabled or persons on very low incomes who may not be able to afford the rent in question. Surely local authorities should not allow the cases of those in special need to go by default. Why does the Minister wish to omit these words?
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is never wise to argue with a lawyer. However, this is still a drafting amendment. No particular category of people is involved. The amendment is designed to tidy up a possible misinterpretation of the 1972 Act, where the fact that there were rent rebates available could be used in determining rent levels.
      This technical drafting amendment in no way affects the eligibility of any person or groups of persons—disabled or otherwise—as to how they will be treated under the rebate scheme.
      I hope that with that technical explanation the amendment will be accepted.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 7, at end insert:
      '(c) having regard to the general level of rents charged by comparable housing authorities and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and by new town development corporations'.
      This is an important amendment which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. Because of the amendment the Minister has introduced, the Bill now provides
      1414
      "In determining standard rents for houses … a local authority shall … (b) subject to section 33 of the 1972 Act … take no account of the personal circumstances of tenants."
      In other words, a local authority just has a general obligation to charge reasonable rents.
      There is no indication of what the Government have in mind by "reasonable". We know from experience that there is no indication of how often rents should be reviewed. What does "from time to time" mean? We suggest that, to avoid a recurrence of a situation which developed last time, local authorities should be under an obligation in fixing rents to
      "have regard to the general level of rents charged by comparable housing authorities and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and by new town development corporations".
      We want to avoid what was a most unjust situation which existed before we introduced our 1972 Act whereby the rent paid for a council house depended not on ability to pay, not on the category of house, but simply on the area one happened to live in. In an area such as Saltcoats the rents would be very low, in some cases absurdly low. In another area the rents would be very high. This was unreasonable and unfair.
      It is only fair and reasonable that the rent should be determined first by the tenant's ability to pay—by his personal circumstances—and by the rate demands on other members of the community and not simply in accordance with the place where one lives.
      There is no doubt that in the past the Government used the SSHA, which they largely control, and the new towns as pacesetters for rent increases. This brought great injustice on people who lived in new towns and on tenants of the SSHA. Although there have been considerable moves to try to equalise the situation, the last information we got about rents in local authority houses and in new towns and the SSHA was that on 28th November 1974 the average rent for a Scottish local authority house was £138 per annum; for the SSHA house it is £144 and for the new town house it is £193. This is the result of development in which new towns and the SSHA were used by Labour Governments as pacesetters for rents.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: Surely the hon. Member would accept that there is a marked similarity between the rent figures for the SSHA and the local authority. The disparity is with the new town figure, and surely the hon. Member accepts that new town rents are that much higher because most of the houses have been built in the last decade and, therefore, to meet historic costs the rents must be high.
      Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Member thinks that historic costs are the basis of fixing rents he will support our 1972 Act because in it we tried to introduce the principle that pooled historic costs should be the basis for fixing rents and that there should be a gradation towards that. That is the principle of the Act which is being destroyed by the Bill. I am astonished to have an indication from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that he supports the principle of the 1972 Act.
      We know exactly what will happen if we pass the Bill without making the amendment. It will mean that certain local authorities, for blatant political purposes—for vote catching—will keep rents artificially low. In other areas they will go up reasonable amounts and elsewhere they will probably be a bit higher.
      Our 1972 Act was an attempt to take housing out of the political scene and to ensure that tenants moved to a situation of a pooled historic cost rent by gradual easy stages of 50p a week over a period of years. In some cases the rent for council houses has reached almost an economic level. All the scare stories about £6, £7 and £8 rents which would result from the Tory Act have been shown to be nonsense. Therefore, if we do not make the amendment the crazy situation will exist throughout Scotland of rents varying from one region and from one district council to another. This will be unfair and unjust, and it will simply permit the Labour Party to distort the housing market by using cheap rents as a simple means of buying votes.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I was astonished when I first read the amendment, but then it dawned on me that its object is not to bring rents on to an equal basis but to raise them. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) had introduced the amendment in
      1416
      order to remedy some inequitable process I should be inclined to agree with him and appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the amendment.
      It is not good enough to say that rents in new towns are £50 a year higher than the rents of local authority housing. The cost of building these houses is so much higher because of increasing interest rates and the general increase in costs in recent years. This does not happen in areas other than new towns where houses are being built now at increased cost. There is an equalisation process now going on. I would rather see an equalisation of house rents throughout Scotland, and merely because some people were unlucky enough to go into the house at a later date should not mean that they have to pay a higher rent.
      I ask my hon. Friend to pay no regard to the amendment which seeks a substantial increase in local authority rents, but to take a sympathetic attitude to the view of hon. Members who, like me, represent new towns where tenants have to pay a much higher rent than tenants of comparable housing—and I stress the word "comparable"—in other parts of Scotland. I accept that my lion. Friend will not regard the amendment with any great favour, but will he consider creating an equalisation process so that rents in new towns are not markedly higher than local authority rents in other parts of Scotland?
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am interested in what the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said. He has asked his hon. Friend the Minister to bring in an equalisation scheme for cases where there appears to be a different charge for the same house in a different area. He is not willing to concede, however, the effect of this principle, which is the basis of the amendment. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the rent is determined not according to where one lives but according to which party is in control in that area. If the hon. Member for East Kilbride wants an equalisation grant he should support the amendment, the basis of which is that there should be an equality of rent for an equality of house whatever its age and position and whoever is in power in the area.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), and he is wrong. Even by looking at the housing statistics of local authorities it is sometimes difficult to determine their political flavour. I do not think that anyone could draw a specific conclusion on that score.
      I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that I am not accepting, or asking the House to accept, the amendment. In general terms I agree that it is desirable that a comparable house should command round about a comparable rent. But there are qualifications. New towns do not have a rate subsidy and a rate contribution. Amenity and all the other environmental factors come into play. Provided we compare like with like, who can deny the logic and justice of my hon. Friend's argument? I therefore have sympathy with it.
      The amendment is a new idea. It suggests that the system which operated before the 1972 Act did not work. There have been no representations from any local authority objecting to what we are proposing, which is to make that system the basis of the review of rents from time to time. There is, therefore, no support for the amendment from anywhere on the Scottish housing scene.
      The amendment is an elegant testimony to the belief, which underlay the Opposition's approach to the Bill in Standing Committee, that local authorities cannot be trusted. We differ completely from the Opposition on that score, and we are proud to do so, especially when dealing with new authorities. They have not yet had an opportunity to perform but already the Conservatives have so little faith in them that they want to tie things up for those authorities tighter than we would wish.
      5.30 p.m.
      I cannot dispute that in the past a number of authorities failed to review rents as often as they might have done, or as the courts decided, should have done. It is a matter of debate whether they did any service to their tenants, because an undue preoccupation with low rents sometimes detracted from the need to improve standards and manage-
      1418
      ment, matters of which we are all now aware and perhaps the new authorities will pay more attention to them. For these reasons, we should reject the amendment.
      The amendment raises a specific question, which I do not want to dodge, about the SSHA and new town development corporations. The rents differential has been narrowed, and, hopefully, will continue to narrow.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Good.
      Mr. Brown: It is all right for my hon. Friend to say "Good", but if that requires local authorities to raise their rents—
      Dr. Miller: No.
      Mr. Brown: The House will see the difficulty I am getting into.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that one way in which we could achieve this desirable objective is to reintroduce the 1972 Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act?
      Mr. Brown: I have been long enough in this busines to be suspicious of simple solutions, especially when one of them is the 1972 Act. However, I concede that if it had eliminated all rate contributions and all housing deficits, as it was intended to do, we should ultimately have reached the position desired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. But that is not the way in which any of us would have chosen to arrive at that happy situation.
      That is why we rely on the good sense of local authorities. In an inflationary period, I can see no hope of any authority—local authority, SSHA or new town—reducing rents. But I hope to be able to avoid giving the impression that any Government deliberately uses the SSHA or the new towns as trend-setters for increased rents. I have already said that in the current climate rents are likely to increase, but it is not fair to the SSHA or new town corporations deliberately to use them as whipping boys to encourage local authorities to do something.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Is it possible for my hon. Friend to indicate to the new town development corporations that it is not incumbent on them continually to increase their rents in order to keep the differential

      1419
      between their rents and local authority rents? There is no God-given reason why that differential should remain. It it is possible for the rents to equalise themselves, let it happen. But do not let the development corporations imagine that they must keep the difference between the rents of their houses and the local authority houses.
      Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is taking me too far along the road that he wants to travel. I have said that I accept his proposition as a general principle. We must equally recognise that under the present system new towns are working under different constraints and financing arrangements. Therefore, I would not like to undermine the responsibilities that the House has placed on them. But I have made clear the direction in which I think we should proceed as a general principle.
      Of course, there are differences. For example, some authorities will still have no SSHA houses or new town houses within their area of responsibility, so comparisons are difficult. Some other authorities could have practically no deficit in their housing account and still have relatively low rents. Saltcoats is a good example. [Laughter.] Conservative Members always laugh. I was going to pay a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), but I see that he is not here.
      Although the rents in Saltcoats are relatively low, the local authority's housing costs are also relatively low, because the bulk of its building was done when costs were relatively low. It was fortunate and far-seeing enough to acquire a large amount of housing land in advance of need. Therefore, whatever arguments Conservative Members may put forward in attacking authorities such as Saltcoats, people such as ex-Provost Lambie and the Lambie dynasty must be complimented on their wisdom in buying up land in those days. Perhaps other authorities did not have the same opportunity, but we should accept that Saltcoats has done a good job.
      We think that we have the measure about right. We believe that the interpretation of "reasonable" is understood, and that all the factors that hon. Members think should be taken into account will
      1420
      be taken into account by the new district authorities.
      The House should not accept the amendment, which merely introduces an additional complication without clarifying the duties that will be placed on local authorities.
      Mr. Frank McElhone: I cannot let the occasion pass without commenting on the amendment, because the amendment, in the name of six Conservative Members, is to try to get rents increased. Drawing red herrings across the Notice Paper in the form of the SSHA and new towns will not do. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who represents a tremendous number of council tenants, should stand up and say so if he wants the rents increased, and should not cloak that desire in the type of amendment we have before us.
      The hon. Gentleman knows, I know, and my hon. Friend the Minister knows, because we all represent Glasgow constituencies, that Glasgow has the highest average council house rent in Scotland. We also know from debates in Committee that the average rent of a comparable SSHA house is not as high. As my hon. Friend the Minister rightly says, there are one or two unusual examples, such as Saltcoats in Ayrshire, where, because of the foresight of people who were in command of the local authority in the past, who bought up land very cheaply and took on a building programme within their limits, the housing revenue account is much healthier than that of many larger authorities. But it is not fair to take one or two isolated examples.
      Housing is now a district function. We gave a promise that we would put the control of rents back into local authorities. Freedom for local authorities was one of the planks of the Conservative platform in 1970, but they did not give freedom back to the authorities. They introduced the 1972 Act, which they know was one of the worst pieces of class-ridden legislation ever to pass through the House.
      Mr. Fairbairn: When the hon. Gentleman uses the words "worst pieces of class-ridden legislation", do I understand him to mean that he greatly regrets that those less able to pay their rent were most helped?
      Mr. McElhone: That is not the argument, because the Labour Government were the first Government to introduce subsidies. We have always been concerned about the inability of certain people to meet the rent levels of certain houses. [Interruption.] I give the hon. Gentleman the point on the allowances for private tenants. But this discussion centres on council tenants, and we are comparing their position with that of tenants of the new towns and the SSHA. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister takes the point.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend advises us to reject the amendment, which is an attempt to make council house rents rise as fast as possible. That has always been the Tories' attitude. We have only to look at the figures which the Minister presented to each member of the Committee considering the Bill to see that council house rents have reached a dangerous level. If they continue to rise, good wage-earning families, virile young families, will move out of large council estates, because they will find it much cheaper to obtain a mortgage and buy a flat or a house.
      We must be careful in the application. We should be concerned not only with rent levels but with the social composition of the large housing estates that we have created. We could end up with a situation in which those estates will be occupied by low-paid workers, the unemployed, the pensioners and the disabled. That would create a dangerous situation. The rent that is being paid is not the only criterion that we should bear in mind. As legislators we have a social as well as a fiscal responsibility.
      The new district authorities also have regard to the difficulties that people face in paying council rents. That is why they have suggested weekly rents or other forms of paying their rents—for example—the Giro system. In my opinion the rent levels for council houses are extremely high. I think that I speak for admost all of the council tenants that I represent. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that the amendment is a sham and that he will reject it.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say how much the average council tenant in his constituency
      1422
      pays in rent and how much he pays in rates?
      Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member for Cathcart knows the figures as well as I do.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Then let the hon. Gentleman tell the House.
      Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman receives a copy of the Glasgow housing manager's report and the figures are available at the Table Office. I do not carry all the figures. I believe that the average rent was roughly £167. I accept that the rates are at a high level in Glagow, but that is not the point. The argument about the amendment is that in the opinion of the Conservative Opposition council rents are not high enough. That has always been the attitude of Conservative Members. They should come clean and tell the House that that is their attitude. I am glad that my hon. Friend has rejected the amendment.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With respect to the Minister, we are not satisfied with his reply. I must say straight away to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) that he does not interpret our amendment as we would wish.
      Mr. McElhone: Of course not. What does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) expect?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must make the point firmly that what we want is to have rents throughout Scotland which are, roughly speaking, comparable. We feel that if the amendment is not accepted that will not be the position. We are suggesting that there will be a feeling of injustice throughout Scotland if the Government pass legislation which causes certain areas to have large housing deficits owing to low rents while in other areas there will be no deficits because the rents are of a different level. I have mentioned that the average rent in Saltcoats in November 1973 was £66 whilst in Bishopbriggs it was £119. Anyone who transferred his home from Saltcoats to Bishopbriggs would find that his rent would nearly double overnight. We believe that that would cause a feeling of injustice and unfairness

      1423
      to be felt by many people throughout Scotland.
      We wish to avoid a situation in which some local authorities will be charging high rents and others very low rents.
      Mr. McElhone: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Apart from other considerations, when comparing Saltcoats and Bishopbriggs it must be remembered that one area is obviously Conservative—that is the area in which the rents are high—and that the other area is Labour dominated. Surely the argument must be based on the housing revenue account. Anyone who has studied the Saltcoats housing revenue account over a number of years will have seen that it is in a much healthier position than many other like accounts. That is the main reason for the rents being low in Saltcoats.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know that for the current year £171·28p is the average annual rent in Glasgow. I suggest that in comparison with Saltcoats that is a high figure. I can well imagine the attitude of persons living in Saltcoats who might wish to transfer to Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is fair for persons living in Saltcoats to be charged one level of rent and those living in Glasgow to be charged a different level of rent, I suggest that that is not the view that will be taken by many people in Scotland.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making two entirely different points. I agree that there should be some kind of equalisation, but if he is trying to put forward the example of someone moving from Saltcoats to Bishopbriggs, finding
      that he has to pay a higher rent and not liking the situation, and somebody moving from Bishopsbriggs to Salt-coats—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) has addressed the House earlier on this amendment. He may seek to ask a question but he cannot make a second and further point by way of a further intervention.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I am merely asking whether it is not the case that somebody moving from Bishopbriggs to Saltcoats will find great relief in the foresight of the people of Saltcoats.
      5.45 p.m.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point must be made that it should not matter where a person lives in Scotland or where he goes to live. We believe that he should be charged approximately the same type of rent for living in the same type of house. We think that it is grossly unfair to have any form of situation which differs from that. That is why we are pressing the amendment.
      On 28th November 1974 the average annual standard rent in Scotland as a whole was £138·20p. For new town development corporation houses the average was £193·68p and for Scottish Special Housing Association houses the average was £144·72p. We feel that that differential is much too wide and that no harm can possibly come from comparing the figures.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 241.

      Division No. 84.]

      AYES

      [5.46 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Carr, Rt Hon Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Dykes, Hugh

      Awdry, Daniel

      Channon, Paul

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bell, Ronald

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Farr, John

      Benyon, W.

      Clegg, Walter

      Fell, Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Cockcroft, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cope, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Corrie, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brittan, Leon

      Costain, A. P.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Crouch, David

      Goodhew, Victor

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gorst, John

      Buck, Antony

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutaford)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Budgen, Nick

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Grist, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Grylls, Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Shersby, Michael

      Hall, Sir John

      Mather, Carol

      Silvester, Fred

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sims, Roger

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Hannam, John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mills, Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Hawkins, Paul

      Moate, Roger

      Spence, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morgan, Geraint

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Higgins, Terence L

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sproat, Iain

      Holland, Philip

      Morrison, Peter (Chester)

      Stainton, Keith

      Hordern, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Neave, Airey

      Stanley, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stokes, John

      Hunt, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Newton, Tony

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Normanton, Tom

      Tebbit, Norman

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      James, David

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Jessel, Toby

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Trotter, Neville

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Percival, Ian

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rathbone, Tim

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Wakeham, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Walters, Dennis

      Lane, David

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wells, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Younger, Hon George

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      MacGregor, John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Mr. Hamish Gray and

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hardy, Peter

      Allaun, Frank

      Deakins, Eric

      Harper, Joseph

      Anderson, Donald

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Archer, Peter

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hatton, Frank

      Ashley, Jack

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Ashton, Joe

      Dempsey, James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Doig, Peter

      Henderson, Douglas

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hooley, Frank

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Horam, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

      Dunn, James A.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Bates, Alf

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

      Beith, A. J.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Eadie, Alex

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Edge, Geoff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Boardman, H.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Booth, Albert

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)

      Bradley, Tom

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      John, Brynmor

      Buchan, Norman

      Faulds, Andrew

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ford, Ben

      Judd, Frank

      Cartwright, John

      Forrester, John

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kelley, Richard

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Freud, Clement

      Kerr, Russell

      Coleman, Donald

      George, Bruce

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Ginsburg, David

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Golding, John

      Lamond, James

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Gould, Bryan

      Lee, John

      Crawford, Douglas

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Graham, Ted

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cronin, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Dalyell, Tam

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Litterick, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur

      Grocott, Bruce

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Luard, Evan

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hamling, William

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      1426

      1427

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Radice, Giles

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Thompson, George

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Reid, George

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Thorpe, Rt Kon Jeremy (N Devon)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Tinn, James

      McNamara, Kevin

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tomlinson, John

      Madden, Max

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Urwin, T. W.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Marquand, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roper, John

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ward, Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Watkins, David

      Mendelson, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Watkinson, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sandelson, Neville

      Watt, Hamish

      Millan, Bruce

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Weitzman, David

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

      Selby, Harry

      Wellbeloved, James

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)

      Whitlock, William

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Newens, Stanley

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Noble, Mike

      Sillars, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Small, William

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Ovenden, John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Padley, Walter

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Palmer, Arthur

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woodall, Alec

      Pardoe, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Park, George

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Parker, John

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. David Stoddart and

      Penhaligon, David

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Perry, Ernest

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 5

      DIRECT PAYMENT OF RENT
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 5, leave out Clause 5.
      In moving that Clause 5 be deleted from the Bill I say at once that I understand and share the concern which led to this clause being moved in Committee. I must also say, however, that it is essential that the clause should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. As hon. Members would expect, in the interval between the Committee proceedings and today I have met my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security to draw his attention to the clause and to seek his views. The clause has also been drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Lord Collison.
      After these discussions I have to tell the House that I am reinforced in my view that the clause is technically deficient—I know that is never a good argument—and impracticable in that it
      1428
      aims to provide an "on request" type of service for beneficiaries without regard to whether they have difficulty in budgeting. Much more importantly, however, the clause is unnecessary in so far as it relates to people who fall behind with their rent.
      To take the main point first, the clause is no longer necessary because of an important shift of emphasis in the approach by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the whole question of direct payment of rent. While in the past this has been regarded as an expedient to be adopted only when persuasion or other attempted remedies have failed, this is no longer the case. Guidance recently issued to Department of Health and Social Security offices, which make payments of supplementary benefit on behalf of the commission, will result in authorisation of direct payment where a tenant is persistently failing to pay rent at a much earlier stage than previously.
      This is a significant change in emphasis and should serve to eliminate one of the most frequent difficulties encountered in the past when requests for direct payment were liable to be turned down until arrears reached substantial proportions.

      1429
      The new guidelines will allow much greater flexibility and a greater area for discussion, so that it will become more a matter of management than of policy to see that the guidance is put into practice.
      6.0 p.m.
      There are detailed instructions in the code for the guidance of local offices. I have studied them, and, knowing something about the subject, I am satisfied that they provide a flexibility that did not exist before.
      Mr. James Dempsey: I am aware of the guidelines which have been sent to the offices, but I am not sure about their interpretation. It has always been a problem to use compulsory powers to deduct rent payments from supplementary benefit recipients. However, I understand that they will be introduced only as a last resort, when all other efforts have failed. My information from social security people in my constituency is that they intend to go to great lengths to encourage people to pay their rent, to accept their responsibilities, to fulfil their obligations—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he is intervening in a speech.
      Mr. Dempsey: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an important point. I had to mention the background before asking my hon. Friend whether he is positive that the guidelines will be interpreted in the generous way he has indicated.
      Mr. Brown: I can never be positive about anything in which there is a degree of flexibility. I should not have used that word. "Discretion" is the official word.
      There has been a change in the guidelines given to local offices. On the one hand, there is a specific guideline to deal at a much earlier stage with beneficiaries who have rent arrears, while still leaving discretion to be exercised locally.
      Mr. Robin F. Cook: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the figures which I gave him earlier today which showed that in Edinburgh there are 2,000 supplementary benefit claimants who owe, on average, about 12 weeks' rent and that only 260 of them are paying rent direct through supplementary benefits offices? Is he confident that the arrangement
      1430
      which he has made with the DHSS and the assurances which he has been given by that Department will guarantee that these figures are brought much more closely in line with each other?
      Mr. Brown: There have been discussions with officials of Edinburgh Corporation and the DHSS subsequent to the last letter which my hon. Friend received from the corporation. I think that Edinburgh Corporation will be reasonably satisfied, but that is a matter for my hon. Friend to check and perhaps advise me on if I am wrong There has been an increase in the number of direct payments, and, with the new instruction, I am sure that no technical barrier will exist if the case is made for increasing the number of direct payments.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: When last May the East Kilbride and Stonehouse Development Corporation increased rents for some houses which were occupied by people on supplementary benefits a difficulty arose for some people because the extra amount was not available from the Department of Health and Social Security until they had incurred the debt for the extra rent which had to be paid. In other words, there was a time-lag during which they owed the money. Some elderly people, in particular, came to see about the matter. I thought that I had straightened it out with the development corporation and with the DHSS, but apparently that is not so.
      It would be of great benefit if the Department of Health and Social Security could ensure that the extra amount of rent—indeed, the whole rent—was paid without the tenants, often elderly women, having to worry and sometimes even receiving letters saying that they are in arrears.
      Mr. Brown: That is a slightly different point which my hon. Friend should take up with the Department of Health and Social Security. Presumably he is talking about cases in which direct payment has been accepted but there is an increase in rent or rates, or both, and a time-lag in increasing the allowance. I agree that such situations sometimes cause unnecessary alarm and concern. However, I am sure that that matter can be sorted out and explained to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend's constituents.

      1431
      I confirm that the letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) sent me showed that there were 263 direct payments made in Edinburgh. Our latest information, which covers the last couple of weeks, is that the figure is up to 483.
      The change in the regulations is not a minor change. Perhaps I did not do the point justice in Committee. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is conscious of the problem of housing associations which cater specially for one-parent families and other low income groups liable to experience particular difficulty in budgeting and has issued special instructions about these. This initiative has been warmly welcomed by the National Federation of Housing Associations.
      We are expecting the report of the Morris Committee dealing with the relationship between social work and housing, but within its remit was a requirement to examine problems associated with the matter we have been considering. I sympathise with the views of hon. Members. I shall meet in the near future the Association of Housing Managers. I shall be putting this matter to the association, because the key to it is the use by housing managers of better and quicker methods for identifying people who are in arrears with their rent, or even identifying them before they fall into arrears.
      I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the amendment.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister's explanation is not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) struck the nail on the head when he said that direct payments were made only in the last resort.
      The Minister made clear that there were three criticisms. The first was that the clause was imperfectly worded. Imperfect wording can easily be straightened out. His second criticism was that the clause was impracticable. It is perfectly practicable to enlarge the Department of Health and Social Security and ensure that the civil servants render a service of the nature we advocate. It may be inconvenient for them to do it with their present staffing, but it is perfectly
      1432
      practicable. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument in that respect was not convincing.
      The third argument was that it was not necessary. It is extremely necessary, and I am reinforced in that belief by representations from three sources. The first source is Shelter, the Scottish campaign for the homeless. The second is the housing committee of Edinburgh Corporation, which has had its request turned down by the Secretary of State and has resorted to approaching Members of Parliament. The third source is the report of the Committee on One-Parent Families by Sir Morris Finer. The Minister mentioned the Morris Committee, but the Finer report deals with this matter on page 511 in recommendation No. 158 which states:
      "Where a tenant receiving supplementary benefit requests, with the support of the social services department or the housing authority or an appropriate voluntary organisation, the Supplementary Benefits Commission to pay the rent direct the application should normally be granted as a matter of course."
      We are asking only that this should be done on request.
      Recommendation No. 159 states:
      "Where the social services department and landlord, in the long-term interests of the tenant, ask for the rent to be paid direct there should be greater willingness on the part of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to do so."
      I appreciate that the Civil Service may have applied great pressure on the Minister and said that this arrangement would be inconvenient, but there is a feeling growing up between social workers in Edinburgh Corporation and social workers in the Department of Health and Social Security. The corporation social workers feel that they are doing a lot of work which should be carried out by officials of the Department, especially in relation to the payment of energy charges. Rather than risk persons committing suicide or having to be taken into care, they feel that they must pay the energy charges on an emergency basis although they do not believe that within the strict definition of the statute they are entitled to do so.
      This is a reasonable request which I ask the Minister to accept.
      Mr. McElhone: I share a great deal of the concern which was expressed by

      1433
      the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and I have a full power of attorney to speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The assurances given by the Minister go a long way towards meeting the reservations which were expressed in Committee, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has adopted similar procedures in days gone by.
      The Minister was generous enough to say that perhaps he had not done justice to the point in Committee. He has responded generously. In the interval he has consulted Lord Collison and has had discussions with the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security. The situation in Edinburgh has improved substantially in the last two weeks. We are always as concerned about Edinburgh as we are about our own localities.
      The assurances given by the Minister have gone a long way to meet the distressing problems. The Minister is aware of our concern, and I do not doubt that he himself has a genuine concern. His explanation has more than satisfied us.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said but I cannot take as charitable a view of it as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone). I am surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) saw fit to give a power of attorney to his colleague rather than give his own public confession of why, for reasons best known to himself and his colleagues, he supports the Government.
      The Minister gave interesting details which we all welcome. No one disagrees with the added flexibility that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will apply. What I have been waiting to her and have not heard is any good reason why a tenant who wishes his rent to be paid directly by the Supplementary Benefits Commission should be refused that right.
      It is desirable that flexibility should be applied, but the tenant is in no different position from any other person who chooses to have various sums deducted from his income before it reaches him. All hon. Members receive their salaries
      1434
      after deductions for national insurance and pension contributions. We have no choice in the matter. The deductions are made partly because it is thought desirable to make them and partly to ensure that the payments are made. In addition, many members of the public, fearful of getting into arrears with insurance contributions, choose to have them deducted before the money reaches their pockets.
      Will the Minister give us an explanation of his attitude, other than the inconvenience it might cause to one or two Government or public officials, which is not a good explanation when we are considering the public interest? Will he give a good reason why a tenant who chooses to ask for his rent to be paid directly should not be allowed to do so?
      The argument that has been put forward in the past is that the tenant must bear the onus of meeting his own commitments, and we accept that. This request in no way indicates that the tenant is denying his commitments any more than an hon. Member who asks his bank to deduct money by standing order refuses to accept his commitments. If this method is convenient to the tenant, if it ensures that the landlord receives the rent and that the arrears disappear and do not reappear, on what basis does the Minister refuse to accept the method?
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was not present in Committee when we discussed this matter and he cannot have read my magnificent contribution or he would not have gone over the same around. His is a typical middle-class approach: "Why should not we have the right to decide how the money should be paid?" It is not as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman claimed to take account of the right of the individual. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) skilfully disguise their patronising attitude which is that in the interests of the public purse we should take away the right of the individual to say "I shall decide how I shall spend my own money".
      The argument may be put the other way. The next stage will be when the Morris Committee reports on electricity charges. It may be said that the people who are receiving supplementary benefit should have their bills paid direct. The

      1435
      next suggestion will be that if they need clothes they should be Given chits which can be exchanged for clothes at the local store. Those people will end up with no money.
      Mr. Hamish Gray: Quite right.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says, "Quite right"—
      Mr. Gray: I did not say "Quite right" to the Minister's remark about people ending up with no money. What I said "Quite right" to was the suggestion that a person on social security benefits should have the responsibility to say that he would like to have his rent deducted from his social security payment. It is the Minister who is interfering with the right of the individual. We are trying to protect the right of the individual to do what he wants to do.
      Mr. Brown: There is a genuine difference of opinion on the two sides of the House. I think I have expressed the overwhelming view of my hon. Friends. There are staffing problems in the Department, but that is not the main burden of the case. If the House wills something it is up to us to find the means to do it, but we must appreciate that there have been many changes in legislation which have laid burdens on the Department—for example, the Christmas bonus, and beef coupons for old-age pensioners. I should not like to see the matter go by without proper consultation through the DHSS with the staff concerned.
      Mr. Rifkind: Does not the Minister accept that it will take much more time and cause more trouble for the Department if it considers each application and decides whether it is to be accepted or refused than if the Department accepts every application in which a tenant asks for such deductions to be made?
      Mr. Brown: I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. The system works fairly well. Where there are guidelines, most of the cases fall within them. It is only in the odd case that discretion needs to be exercised.
      Hon. Members who know anything about social security will realise that the system works reasonably well. The Finer
      1436
      Report has been taken on board. That is partly the reason why there have been changes of coding and advice to local offices. I am confident that we do not need to have the clause in the Bill, and I hope that the House will agree to delete it.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am bitterly disappointed with the Minister's remarks. He spoke about extending the guidelines, but the debate in Committee on this point was on the question not whether the guidelines should be extended but whether the principle should be accepted. The Minister must be aware that if this proposal cannot be undertaken in one year because of administrative difficulties, if the principle is accepted the Opposition—and, we hope, those Labour Members who supported us upstairs in Committee—will be glad to go along with the Minister in any proposal for the period to be increased to two, three or four years.
      The Minister mentioned the Finer Report—a bulky document running to hundreds of pages. I ask the Minister to look at page 396. I hope the Minister will listen to what I am saying instead of making arrogant and stupid interventions—[Interruption.] Had the Minister taken part in the proceedings on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, he would understand why we take this attitude. However, if he looks at page 396 of the Finer Report, he will see that it says:
      "where the tenant, with the support of the social services department, or the housing authority … requests the Commission to pay the rent direct, the application should (other than in exceptional circumstances) be granted as a matter of course".
      That is precisely the situation we want to arrive at.
      The Minister was wrong in his comments about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind). There is no question of our adopting an arrogant or middle-class attitude, but we are deeply concerned that, because of the absence of this facility, which we seek to provide, many hundreds of families in Scotland will be penalised. Those families are undergoing agonising crises. Many are breaking up, and mothers are taking pills because many families find great difficulty in managing their affairs.

      1437
      The Minister said that he would extend the guidelines, but I am concerned in assisting families who now face problems, and am very much interested in preventing such situations arising. The Minister must be aware of the figures published in Glasgow by the Castlemilk Interest Group showing an increase in the number of evictions for non-payment of rent. Every eviction involves human hardship and tragedy. The Minister must be aware that if this facility were introduced, it would go a long way towards preventing some of these problems arising, and would certainly help a large number of people who are in trouble.
      Nobody underestimates the administrative difficulties. This proposal would mean creating work for the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the DHSS. However, if the right were automatic there would be no need to go through each case individually. We want to establish that at some future stage, when the administrative problems are overcome, the Government will accept the Finer Committee's recommendation on this point—a point supported by the Edinburgh Corporation and social workers in many parts of Scotland—namely, that every tenant on supplementary benefit and other benefits who wants his rent paid direct should be able to take advantage of such provision.
      I was disappointed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) for we thought that we had his support—
      Mr. Dempsey: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence of persons making such a request from the social security authorities, and of the request being refused?
      Mr. Taylor: Yes, I have. I can give the hon. Gentleman many examples. If he will contact the Castlemilk Interest Group, it will give him the evidence. Furthermore, the Family Service Unit in Glasgow has evidence of such refusals.
      We are interested in this being an automatic right. We do not want to lay
      down a time scale. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park and any member of the SNP who has a mandate to speak on this matter will reconsider the position. If this provision goes to the House of Lords the Government will probably have another thought about timing, but I believe that we should now say clearly that the House of Commons believes that this is a principle that should be contained in the Bill.
      We all know that many people on large incomes find it difficult to pay their bills. That is why they use bankers' orders to pay their mortgages and other monthly instalments. It makes life more tolerable, and enables people to cope more easily with their daily lives. Families on supplementary benefit are in a more difficult situation, for they have nothing to spare. If they get behind one week they have difficulty in making it up the next. Therefore, if their rent falls behind by a month or two months, it may be the beginning of the slippery slope, and may land a family in distress, with family break-up, children in care, and all the rest of it. We should do all we can to avoid that situation. It is worth while going ahead with this provision, even though we may save only one family break-up or prevent one family tragedy.
      Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park and other labour Members who shared our views in Committee will stand firm and support the principle of direct payment of rents. We are prepared to leave the details to be worked out by the Government in the proper way, but surely this is a principle which, for the sake of humanity and to avoid any further family trouble and distress—and there are more families who find themselves in difficulty every year—we should support. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and that the House will reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 183.

      Division No. 85.]

      AYES

      [6.28 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ashley, Jack

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

      Allaun, Frank

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bates, Alf

      Anderson, Donald

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Archer, Peter

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Boardman, H.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Perry, Ernest

      Booth, Albert

      Hooley, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Horam, John

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

      Radice, Giles

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Buchan, Norman

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Campbell, Ian

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rooker, J. W.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roper, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      John, Brynmor

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cartwright, John

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Judd, Frank

      Selby, Harry

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kelley, Richard

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kerr, Russell

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sillars, James

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamond, James

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lee, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Small, William

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Litterick, Tom

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dempsey, James

      Loyden, Eddie

      Stallard, A. W.

      Doig, Peter

      Luard, Evan

      Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stoddart, David

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Stott, Roger

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McElhone, Frank

      Strang, Gavin

      Dunn, James A.

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dunnett, Jack

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Edge, Geoff

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Madden, Max

      Tinn, James

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tomlinson, John

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marquand, David

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ward, Michael

      Flannery, Martin

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Watkins, David

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendelson, John

      Watkinson, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Weitzman, David

      Ford, Ben

      Millan, Bruce

      Wellbeioved, James

      Forrester, John

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

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Whitlock, William

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Golding, John

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Newens, Stanley

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Noble, Mike

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Graham, Ted

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Grocott, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Woodall, Alec

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ovenden, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hamling, William

      Padley, Walter

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Hardy, Peter

      Palmer, Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      Park, George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Parker, John

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Hatton, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr. John Ellis.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Pendry, Tom

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brittan, Leon

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Clegg, Walter

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Cockcroft, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Bell, Ronald

      Budgen, Nick

      Cope, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Corrie, John

      Benyon, W.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Costain, A. P.

      Biffen, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Crawford, Douglas

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Carr, Rt Hon Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Crouch, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Channon, Paul

      Crowder, F. P.

      1440

      1441

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lamont, Norman

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lane, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shersby, Michael

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Farr, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fell, Anthony

      Lloyd, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Spence, John

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sproat, Iain

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacGregor, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Freud, Clement

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stanley, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Gorst, John

      Mather, Carol

      Stokes, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Tapsell, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Gray, Hamish

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mills, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Monro, Hector

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Grylls, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint

      Thompson, George

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Hall, Sir John

      Morrison, Peter (Chester)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mudd, David

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neave, Airey

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Hannam, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Neubert, Michael

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Newton, Tony

      Wakeham, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Normanton, Tom

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Onslow, Cranley

      Warren, Kenneth

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Watt, Hamish

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hordern, Peter

      Pardoe, John

      Wells, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Welsh, Andrew

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Penhaligon, David

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Percival, Ian

      Hunt, John

      Hunt, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Reid, George

      Younger, Hon George

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. John Stradling Thomas and

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 6

      SURPLUS FUNDS OF NEW TOWN CORPORATIONS
      6.30 p.m.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 17, leave out from 'surplus' to 'after' in line 18 and insert 'on capital account'.
      The clause as it stands could be summed up as a "grabbing profits from the new towns" clause. If a new town development corporation makes a considerable profit, it should not inevitably go to the Government. It is only fair that if a new town development corporation makes a fair profit, it should be enabled to use it to improve the amenities of the new town.
      1442
      The new towns make a tremendously significant contribution to Scotland. During the summer months many visitors to Scotland are taken specially to see them as models worthy of copying in other countries. We believe that the new towns are worthy examples for other places. I ask the Government to think again and perhaps to have a more general and nationalistic approach to the matter.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): Although I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, I have read the Committee proceedings. This matter was discussed at some length, and, moreover, since the Committee proceedings, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and to other members of the Committee explaining the Government's

      1443
      thinking behind this provision and why they did not think it desirable that we should accept the amendment. In those circumstances, I do not wish to make a long speech about the amendment. I simply remind the House of the background against which the provision has been inserted in the Bill.
      I shall not make anything of the fact that this provision was put into the English Act in 1972 by the former Conservative Government, because I accept that for this Government to follow the provisions of the previous Government in any respect would probably be the weakest argument for any provision we might be making.
      Apart from that, there are substantial and reasonable arguments in favour of including this provision in the Bill. It is discretionary. In the event of a new town having a surplus, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to provide for the surplus to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Before there was any question of using this provision—it is not likely to be used in the near future—there will of course be consultations with the development corporation concerned.
      The principle that surpluses may be recovered is already part of our existing new towns legislation. The 1968 Act, for example, provides that when a new town corporation is wound up any surpluses from the winding up should be paid into the Exchequer. That is a reasonable provision, because it takes account of the history of new town financing, which has been done very largely at the expense of the taxpayer.
      We must remember that apart from loans made to the new towns, the development corporations already receive substantial Exchequer grants, apart from what is done to eliminate their housing deficits. For example, during the year to 31st March 1974, £1·8 million was paid to the new towns in Scotland by way of grants additional to the usual housing subsidies which are paid to public authorities. The effect of the financing arrangements for the new towns is that, for good reasons—because the new towns make an important contribution to economic development in Scotland and because they also provide admirable housing for the people who live in them—the taxpayer has taken on special obligations
      1444
      towards them. That being so, and the taxpayer having invested considerable sums in new towns, it seems utterly reasonable that if and when the new towns begin to make surpluses there should at least be a discretionary provision—not obligatory or mandatory on the Secretary of State or the new towns—that, if the circumstances justify it and the surpluses are not required either for writing down the loans or for capital expenditure, they shall be paid back to the Government, from whom the original investment came.
      As regards the present position in Scotland, East Kilbride and Stonehouse is earning a surplus on general revenue account. It is not earning a true surplus since it is still in deficit on its housing revenue account. However, on the general revenue account the surplus, with our approval, is at present being used to reduce the need for new borrowing in East Kilbride for ongoing development.
      There will be considerable capital expenditure in building up the new town of Stonehouse. None of the other new towns is likely to be in a real surplus position before the 1980s except perhaps in respect of the effect on new towns of the Government's new policy for land which we shall have the opportunity of debating later in the Session. However, in the event of surpluses becoming available, it seems to us only right that one of the possibilities for dealing with them should be that they be paid back to the Exchequer. That is the sole, limited and inoffensive purpose of the provision. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that by raising this matter both during in Committee and now we shall make the Government think about something which, for the second time, is unfair to the new towns.
      The Minister did not deal with our amendment. He gave us an interesting dissertation on the letter sent to us by his hon. Friend, but he did not deal with the difference between capital and revenue.
      Mr. Millan: I did not deal with that because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) did not deal with it either when he moved

      1445
      the amendment, so I thought that that was not a point to which the Opposition attached any importance.
      Mr. Taylor: I am afraid that the Minister could not have been listening. That was the precise point to which my hon. Friend referred when speaking about repayment. We feel that it is unfair if the Government decide to take money from new towns with a surplus on capital account and deny them the right even to take the sum off the accumulated debt. If the Minister of State lent me £1,000—which is very unlikely—and I paid £500, I think it is fair and reasonable to regard that debt as being £500.
      This proposal seems unfair. I had hoped by this amendment to make the Government look again at something which appears to be very unfair to the new towns.
      Mr. Millan: I do not want to make heavy weather of this. I met all the new town chairmen and chief executives within the last fortnight to discuss problems relating to new towns. The Bill and this provision are well known to them. I have received no complaints about them. As I understand it, the new towns are not the least unhappy about this provision.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 7

      PHASING OF RENT INCREASES WHERE RENT FOR DWELLING-HOUSE UNDER TENANCY IS REGISTERED
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 21, leave out from 'rent' to 'which' in line 27 and insert:
      '(whether registered before or after the commencement of this Act).'
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider Government Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 24, 26 and 28 to 36.
      Mr. Brown: The purpose of these amendments to to deal with especially steep increases in rents following the end of the freeze. Before I go any further, I direct hon. Members' attention to the explanatory material on the effect of these amendments, which has been made available. It was circulated to all members
      1446
      of the Committee and I hope that they found it helpful. Under existing legislation tenants whose rent increases were in course of phasing when the freeze began, and those who had rents registered in the early months of the freeze, might have to pay an increase made up of two phased increases immediately after the end of the freeze—either together or within a short time of each other. In many cases this would result in very steep increases and would wipe away much of the counter-inflationary benefit of the freeze.
      The effect of the amendments is to allow rents to be increased at a steady rate towards fair rent levels, following the end of the current standstill. The amendments can be summarised as follows.
      For rents registered before the freeze which were already subject to phasing the new paragraph 5A provides that they shall resume phasing at the next stage which they would have been due to reach had the freeze not occurred, instead of resuming at two levels of phasing higher. This would have happened in a very large number of cases.
      Sub-paragraph (3) of the new paragraph 5A provides that for rents registered during the freeze which would have been subject to existing phasing provisions, phasing shall begin from the end of the freeze instead of from the date on which the rent was registered.
      Paragraph 5B introduces the same arrangement for rents registered before or during the freeze which were not previously entitled to phasing and which had not been increased to the registered rent when the freeze began.
      The amendments are made within the framework of the fair rents system, which we introduced in 1965. As my right hon. Friend indicated on Second Reading, we are undertaking a longer-term review of housing policies and finance and we shall be looking closely at the system of "fair rents" as part of that review. In putting down these amendments, we are attempting to reduce the impact of steep increases in the post-freeze period. In that sense, they are designed to deal with a situation at a particular period of tme.
      The changes will, however, enable us to make steady progress towards "fair rents" from what we must recognise as in many respects a low rent situation in Scotland. As I said when we discussed

      1447
      an earlier group of amendments, this perhaps has made worse some of the problems arising from that policy. The amendments are made in keeping with the "fair rent' system. They do not significantly impede progress towards "fair rents", and they do not interfere with established rights of application for re-registration of a fair rent three years after the original registration.
      The new phasing arrangements make it possible to repeal—and so rationalise—the existing phasing provisions contained in the initial Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 and the 1972 Act immediately, instead of in two years as the Bill provides at present. Most of the amendments in this group are consequential upon this change. We are all concerned, in the interests of the public, whom the Bill affects so directly, to simplify the legislation on private rents as far as possible, and we are therefore proposing that we should make this Bill the sole piece of legislation to which anyone need refer concerning phasing, instead of perpetuating phasing provisions in two other Acts.
      I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will support me in these amendments, which attempt to solve sympathetically yet rationally the problems of phased rent movements, particularly in the post-freeze period. I commend the amendments with enthusiasm as being an attempt to introduce an element of justice to all concerned in a situation which has arisen because of the freeze.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two brief questions?
      First, has he discussed this proposal with representatives of rent assessment committees, and do they envisage any practical difficulties? The committees will be meeting to consider new rents and a period of re-registration when the tenants will not be paying the rents which would have been paid according to their previous decisions.
      Secondly, the Minister explained that new Clause 1 was not being introduced in England and Wales. To what extent is this bringing about a variation in practice, compared with the situation in England and Wales?
      Mr. Brown: Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's first question, as I said earlier, I have had informal discussions with some of the people concerned in the operation of the Rent Act. Again, I can give the hon. Gentleman a fairly categorical assurance that this proposal should not present any problems from the point of view of administration or from that of the application of the fair rents policy.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are proposing simply a phasing arrangement which does not alter what might be described as the anniversary date of the registration of a rent. In some cases the tenants will arrive at the anniversary date where the rent can be re-registered, even though in some cases they will not have reached the fair rent. It does not cut across the basic principle of aiming towards a fair rent. However, because of the freeze and because of what we are doing, there is this difference in the final stage when the next registration may take place. In other words, it does not alter the date for that, but it means that in some cases the fair rent may not have been reached. It will not present any problems. It does not even introduce a new consideration, because the existing fair rent is already known and established.
      As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, we are happy to be able to say that what we have done here is slightly better than the English and Welsh have done. This might have been appropriate to our debates in the past two days. The only provision made in the English and Welsh legislation is for those rents registered during the freeze. We are bringing in the category of rents which were registered before the freeze. I am sure that hon. Members will compliment us on having the initiative and vision to be slightly different and, as usual, better.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 6, in line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
      '(4) The following provisions shall cease to have effect—

      (a) section 79 of the 1971 Act and Schedule 13 thereto;

      (b) section 37 of the 1972 Act and Schedule 6 thereto.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

    Clause 9

      INCREASES OF RENT UNDER CONTROLLED TENANCY PERMITTED TOWARDS COST OF REPAIRS
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'by' to end of subsection and insert:
      'such sum as the rent officer considers reasonable having regard to the sum expended on repairs'.
      This amendment was partially discussed in Committee, although we are putting a different face on it now.
      Basically, we are dealing with approximately 5,000 substandard houses which still have controlled rents. The Bill contains provisions whereby fair rents cannot be established for these houses. Instead, the landlords are entitled to a return of only 12½ per cent. of the cost of any repairs that they do. The rents of most of these houses are very low. If a landlord wants to spend money on repairs, he will not be able to do so on the basis of the revenue from the rents of those houses. It seems to us that 12½ per cent. is unreasonable in view of the cost of borrowing money. If the landlord has to borrow money, he will not get an adequate return from his rents to finance the loan.
      We do not suggest changing the figure to a higher percentage. Instead, we suggest that rent officers should be allowed to consider a reasonable return for the landlord who has to borrow money to pay for repairs. Each case will vary. Some repairs will be major; others will be minor. But, bearing in mind the cost of borrowing, 12½ per cent. is unreasonable and allows no flexibility.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the principle, if not the exact wording, of the amendment.
      Mr. Millan: I understand the reasoning behind the amendment.
      The figure of 12½ per cent. is precedented in earlier housing legislation. I take the point that it is not easy to arrive at exactly the right percentage in a matter of this kind. We thought that in all the circumstances 12½ per cent. was probably about right.
      1450
      As the hon. Gentleman said, we are dealing here with houses which are still subject to controlled tenancies and not to the fair rent provisions. Therefore, my principle objection to the amendment is that it brings the rent officer, who is concerned specifically with the fair rent provisions, into an area from which we have specifically excluded him for policy reasons and for other reasons which it is not appropriate for me to explain at the moment.
      My second objection to the amendment is that it would introduce uncertainty about the effect that carrying out repairs would have on rents. Although the hon. Gentleman may think that by inserting a provision of this kind into the Bill the object would be achieved of encouraging landlords to spend more on repairs and to do them where in other circumstances they would not be willing to do them, there is an equal and perhaps greater danger that, with an element of uncertainty in the situation, a landlord would be less willing to carry out repairs than he would be under the clause as it is drafted.
      7.0 p.m.
      There would, of course, be certain anomalies also between one kind of tenant and another, with some tenants paying on a percentage basis and others through the rent assessment proceedings. But the basic arguments against the amendment are those I have mentioned. The first is that the rent officer would be introduced into an area where he has really no jurisdiction at the moment. The second is that the amendment would create uncertainty. On balance, the provision in the Bill is the better one, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we should encourage landlords in this kind of situation to carry out essential repairs to property and give them a certain financial incentive to do so.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has moved the amendment. Earlier, he wanted to curb the freedom of local authorities in the determination of rents. Now, paradoxically, he argues for more freedom to be given to rent officers to decide rent increases. It is a strange concept of democracy that would give less freedom to members of local

      1451
      authorities democratically elected, but give what would appear to be absolute power in this respect to non-elected officials, the rent officers.
      The amendment states that rents could be increased by
      "such sum as the rent officers considers reasonable having regard to the sum expended on repairs."
      That would be giving the rent officer far too much latitude and, as my hon. Friend has said, it would be asking the rent officer to intrude into an area where he did not intrude before. It is more appropriate that this House should decide what is reasonable, and that is what the Government are attempting to do. One-eighth of the cost of repairs per annum seems to be a reasonable amount.
      Earlier, the hon. Gentleman pleaded for the rights of private tenants. That made me even more surprised by the amendment, because it would mean that a rent officer could, in effect, raise the rents of private tenants by exorbitant amounts. The Government's standpoint is far more reasonable in setting a ceiling in both the private sector and the public sector, including a ceiling on the amount to which rents can be raised per annum as a result of repairs carried out by the landlord.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am quite unimpressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but the Minister of State has put practical objections to the amendment which are worth considering. I hope that between now and later stages of the Bill he will reconsider whether 12½ per cent. is really an appropriate figure.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 7, line 26, leave out from 'subject to' to 'of that Schedule' and insert
      'the note at the end'.—[Mr. Millan.]

    Schedule 2

      PHASING OF RENT INCREASES WHERE RENT FOR DWELLING-HOUSE UNDER REGULATED TENANCY IS REGISTERED
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 12, line 12, leave out '4 and 5' and insert '3(4), 4, 5, 5A and 5B'.
      No. 10, in line 14, leave out from 'rent' to end of line 15.
      No. 11, in line 20, leave out 'paragraph 4' and insert
      'paragraphs 4, 5A and 5B'.
      No. 12, in line 21, leave out 'immediately' and insert
      'for the last rental period beginning'.
      No. 13, in line 21, leave out 'the landlord was entitled to recover' and insert 'was payable'.
      No. 14, in line 36, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
      No. 15, in page 13, line 31, leave out 'sub-paragraph (4)' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)'.
      No. 16, in line 34, leave out 'where' and insert
      'and for the purposes of this paragraph'.
      No. 17, in page 14, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
      '(4) Where the permitted increase for any rental period in terms of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above, other than any increase permitted in respect of a service element, would exceed £1.50 per week, the period of delay shall be extended, and
      (a) the permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the first year of the period of delay is an increase to the following amount—
      PRL+SE+£1.50 per week;
      and
      (b) the permitted increase for a rental period which begins during a subsequent year of the period of delay is an increase to the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before that year, was payable by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment, plus

      (i) any increase permitted in respect of a service element not previously recovered and

      (ii) £1.50 per week.

      (5) Nothing in this Schedule shall enable a rent to be increased to an amount greater than the registered rent.'.
      No. 18, in line 10, leave out from "agreement" to "which" in line 11 and insert:
      "with a tenant having security of tenure within the meaning of section 42(1) of the 1972 Act,".
      No. 19, in line 18, leave out "immediately" and insert:
      "for the last rental period beginning".
      No. 20, in line 19, leave out "the landlord was entitled to recover" and insert "was payable".
      No. 21, in page 14, leave out lines 31 and 32.
      No. 22, in line 36, leave out from "shall" to "begin" in line 37.
      No. 23, in line 38, at end insert:
      "or, where paragraph 4 above applies, with the date when the rent agreement took effect".
      No. 24, in line 39 at beginning insert:
      "Modifications in cases where rent was registered before commencement of Act
      5A.—(1) In relation to any registered rent which was subject to phasing under the provisions of section 79 of the 1971 Act and Schedule 13 thereto, or of section 37 of the 1972 Act and Schedule 6 thereto, sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of this paragraph shall apply in place of the said provisions.
      (2) Where a rent was registered before 8th March 1974 and part of a period of delay imposed in respect thereof under any of the provisions specified in sub-paragraph (1) above remain unexpired on that date—

      (a) in any case where 8th March 1974 fell within the second year of the said period of delay, this Schedule shall apply to the rent as if the second year of a period of delay imposed under this Schedule had ended at the commencement of this Act and as if the period of delay last mentioned had been extended under paragraph 3(4) above;

      (b) in any case where 8th March 1974 fell within the first year of the period of delay first mentioned, this Schedule shall apply as if the second year of a period of delay imposed under this Schedule had begun at the commencement of this Act.

      (3) In any case where a rent, which was subject to phasing under any of the provisions specified in sub-paragraph (1) above, was registered on or after 8th March 1974 but before the commencement of this Act, this Schedule shall apply to the rent as if—

      (i) a period of delay in terms of this Schedule had begun at such commencement, and

      (ii) the previous rent limit were the amount which, for the last rental period beginning before such commencement, was payable, by way of rent, having regard to the provisions of any enactment.

      5B. Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 5A above shall apply in any case where—
      1454

      (a) a rent was registered before the commencement of this Act, which was not subject to phasing under any of the provisions referred to in that sub-paragraph, and

      (b) the previous rent limit in terms of that sub-paragraph is less than the registered rent,

      as it applies in any such case as is mentioned in the said sub-paragraph (3)".
      No. 25, in line 40, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
      '6—(1) The Secretary of State may by order substitute, for the specified sum, or for the sum of £1.50 mentioned in paragraph 3(4) above, in relation to any year of the period of delay, or to the whole period, a sum other than the sum mentioned in this Schedule; and different sums may be specified for each of those cases or any of them.
      (2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under that sub-paragraph.
      6A. In ascertaining for the purposes of this Schedule any difference between periods of different lengths, a month shall be treated as one-twelfth and a week as one-fifty-second of a year'.
      No. 26, in page 15, line 22, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 26 and insert:
      'for the words from "section 79" to "1972" there shall be substituted the words "section 7 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975".'.
      No. 27, in line 30, leave out 'section 7' and insert:
      'sections 7 and (Limitation of rent increases under rent agreement where no rent is registered for dwelling-house under regulated tenancy)'.
      No. 28, in page 16, leave out lines 11 to 24.
      No. 29, in line 27, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 31 and insert:
      'for the words from "Schedule 13" to "1972" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975".'.
      No. 30, in line 48, leave out from '(b)' to end of line 15 on page 17 and insert:
      'for the words from "Schedule 13" to the end of head (b) there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975.".'—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 31, in page 17, leave out lines 18 and 19.
      No. 32, leave out lines 23 to 26 in column 3 and insert:
      'Section 79.
      Schedule 13.'.
      No. 33, in page 18, line 8, leave out column 3 and insert: 'Sections 37 and 38.'.
      No. 34, in column 3, leave out line 19 and insert:
      'Schedule 6.
      In Schedule 7, paragraphs 9 to 12'.
      No. 35, in line 29, leave out 'this Part of'.
      No. 36, in page 19, leave out lines 1 to 24.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]
      7.5 p.m.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      This is an important piece of legislation. In our manifesto for Scotland we promised to repeal the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, which indiscriminately put up rents, and to restore the power of local authorities to fix their own rents. The Bill fulfils that undertaking. From next May, local authorities will again be free to determine reasonable rents for the houses they provide and to make their own decisions about the size of the rate contribution to the housing revenue account.
      The Bill also provides for a strengthening of the Government subsidy support available to local authorities, with £5 million more being made available by way of housing expenditure subsidy in 1975–76 and further increases thereafter. The rent income subsidy, which is meeting 90 per cent. of the loss of income of local authorities on the rent standstill in the current year, will be continued in 1975–76, when it will have totalled about £12 million to local authorities.
      These two sums are not chickenfeed, and I am sure that the local authorities and the tenants recognise, as I hope the House recognises, that the Government are making a further substantial contribution to the provision of adequate housing in the public sector. The Bill has revealed a fundamental difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition, and we are not surprised about that. It seems still to be the case that the Opposition mistrust local authorities—even the new local authorities. That mistrust was behind the 1972 Act.
      1456
      We have never accepted that principle. We have confidence in the ability and integrity of the new local authorities to build up their housing programmes, which have lagged behind because of the 1972 Act. The Bill will also give confidence to the building industry. We have not forgotten the private sector, by introducing a limitation on the increase of rents and the phasing provisions. This is an extremely important piece of housing legislation, and in political terms it is a fulfilment of a promise we have given. For these reasons, I hope the House will give it a Third Reading.
      7.9 p.m.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: This is an important Bill, but I do not agree that it is acceptable. It is in two parts. The first part deals with the public sector and the second with the private sector. Our arguments in Committee were largely on the provisions for the public sector, although the hon. Gentleman has introduced some sweeping new amendments dealing with the private sector following reconsideration since the Committee stage and in the light of anomalies which might have arisen.
      We object to the Bill for three main reasons. First, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, it fulfils an election pledge by the Labour Party to repeal the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972. What the hon. Gentleman has not done is give us any reasons why the Labour Party wished to do so. Apart from saying that it is a pledge fulfilled, the hon. Gentleman has not told us just what hardship was caused by the 1972 Act. What stands out is that the Act was subject to the most blatant campaign of unfair misrepresentation of any Act of Parliament.
      There was no better example of this than the propaganda to the effect that rents of £7, £8 or £9 would be charged as a result of the Act. In Committee, the Minister gave us some details of the present percentage housing deficits of local authorities, which showed that several were on the point of achieving an economic rent, and so would not need to have substantial increases in future.
      We also object to the Bill because the national rent rebate scheme which our Act introduced ensured that rents were related not to the political complexion of

      1457
      the council but to the needs of the individual. As a result 241,000 tenants—three out of every 10—are at present receiving rent rebates, which average £75.
      We also think that the Bill is wrong because it will add to housing deficits. The present deficit of around £27 million will increase by probably £8 million in 1975, which will mean more on the rates for everyone, including council tenants.
      The most objectionable feature is that there will once again be wide variations in the levels of rents. Our Act was intended to bring about some harmony and do away with the situation in which rents in one area could be much above or below what they were in others. It can therefore be understood why we feel that the Government were wrong to repeal the 1972 Act and introduce the Bill.
      We should aim at fairness. We believe that we had achieved fairness with the 1972 Act, first, because it helped those in need, second, because it limited rent increases until an economic rent had been reached to 50p a week and, third, because it aimed at eliminating the rates subsidy.
      The 1972 Act was useful and beneficial and created no hardship. Under the Bill, we return to the system of councils being obliged to charge "reasonable" rents and to review them "from time to time". In Committee we tried to discover what was meant by "reasonable" and by "from time to time". The last time that this system was the law, because local authorities were not aware of their obligations, or tried to avoid them, cases were brought to court to establish whether councils had charged reasonable rents and reviewed them from time to time. Once again, we shall not have justice in this situation, and rates subsidies will mount in many towns, districts and new authorities.
      We oppose the Bill because we feel that our Act tried fairly to take public housing out of the political arena and prevent rents from becoming a means by which a political party could distort the housing market and obtain votes by charging unreasonably low rents. Our Act was fair; this Bill is unfair, and will create unfairness throughout Scotland.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 147.

      Division No. 86.]

      AYES

      [7.13 p.m.

      Anderson, Donald

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hamling, William

      Archer, Peter

      Delargy, Hugh

      Harper, Joseph

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dempsey, James

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Ashley, Jack

      Doig, Peter

      Hatton, Frank

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Atkinson, Norman

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Henderson, Douglas

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dunn, James A.

      Hooley, Frank

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel

      Dunnett, Jack

      Horam, John

      Bates, Alf

      Eadie, Alex

      Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Edge, Geoff

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Boardman, H.

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Booth, Albert

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fernyhouqh, Rt Hon E.

      John, Brynmor

      Buchan, Norman

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Flannery, Martin

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Campbell, Ian

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ford, Ben

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Forrester, John

      Judd, Frank

      Cartwright, John

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Freud, Clement

      Kelley, Richard

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      George, Bruce

      Kerr, Russell

      Coleman, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Golding, John

      Lamond, James

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Gould, Bryan

      Lee, John

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Graham, Ted

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Dalyell, Tam

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Litterick, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur

      Grocott, Bruce

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Luard, Evan

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Parker, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Perry, Ernest

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Prescott, John

      Thompson, George

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Reid, George

      Tinn, James

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Tomlinson, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Madden, Max

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Mahon, Simon

      Rodgers, George (Chorleyl

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rooker, J. W.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Marquand, David

      Roper, John

      Ward, Michael

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Watkins, David

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Watkinson, John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Weitzman, David

      Mendelson, John

      Selby, Harry

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mikardo, Ian

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Millan, Bruce

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

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

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)

      Whitlock, William

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sillars, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Silverman, Julius

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Newens, Stanley

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Noble, Mike

      Small, William

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Ovenden, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Padley, Walter

      Stallard, A. W.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Pardoe, John

      Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)

      Mr. John Ellis and

      Park, George

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gray, Hamish

      Nelson, Anthony

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Grist, Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grylls, Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Bell, Ronald

      Hall—Davis, A. G. F.

      Normanton, Tom

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Percival, Ian

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Brittan, Leon

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Rathbone, Tim

      Brotherton, Michael

      Holland, Philip

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hunt, John

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Buck, Antony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Budgen, Nick

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Burden, F. A.

      James, David

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Mark

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Channon, Paul

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Clegg, Walter

      Knox, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Cockcroft, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Silvester, Fred

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Lane, David

      Sims, Roger

      Cope, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Corrie, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Costain, A. P.

      Lawson, Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Critchley, Julian

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Spence, John

      Crouch, David

      Luce, Richard

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Crowder, F. P.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sproat, Iain

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stainton, Keith

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      MacGregor, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stanley, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stokes, John

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Tebbit, Norman

      Farr, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mills, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Moate, Roger

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Monro, Hector

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan, Geraint

      Viggers, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mudd, David

      Wakeham, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Neave, Airey

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      1460

      1461

      Walters, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wells, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. John Stradliag Thomas and

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Adam Butler.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is one of the consequences of local government reform. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the burgh and the county, as local government units, cease to exist on 16th May 1975. Thus, the administrative structure on which the existing burgh and justice of the peace courts are based is removed, and fresh arrangements are needed for the disposal of summary criminal cases.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if, before describing the Bill in detail, I give some account of the steps leading up to it. The best starting point is probably the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, published in September 1969. The Royal Commission did not make detailed recommendations about the administration of justice but expressed its belief that the lay courts of summary jurisdiction could conveniently be reconstituted within the new structure of the district authorities and in association with them. That is in paragraph 1102 of Cmnd. Paper 4150.
  As the House will appreciate, the Bill accords very closely with the commission's belief that the courts could be reconstituted within the new structure of district authorities. There were, however, several other steps—or, should I say, false starts?—between the commission's report and the Bill. In April 1971 the then Secretary of State said that the existing justice of the peace system should be developed with stipendiary magistrates appointed by the Crown in large centres of population to meet the need for a new system of courts after the reform of local government. A working party was set up which carried out a detailed examination of the existing arrangements and considered various aspects of the proposed new system. A White Paper called "Justices of the Peace and Justices' Courts" was presented to Parliament in March 1973. It took account of the working party's
  1464
  report and proposed a system of justices' courts based on the area of the island or district authority but financed by the Government and staffed by officers of the sheriff court service. Even then, in March 1973, the deadline of May 1975 was not too far distant, and much administrative work remained to be done.
  The proposals were strongly criticised because they made no arrangement for the provision of legal advice to the lay bench. The clerk of the court, provided by the sheriff court service, would, like the bench, have had no legal qualification. The then Government decided to try again, and a second set of proposals was announced in October 1973. They did not attempt to deal with this main criticism but performed a complete volte face—certainly in my view—without adequate explanation. Those of us who were in the House at the time remember that it was done in the form of a Written Answer in Hansard. Instead of the strengthened lay court of the White Paper, they proposed to abolish the centuries-old tradition of lay participation in the administration of justice and transfer all the work done in the existing lay courts to the sheriff summary court, strengthened by the appointment of a new type of lesser professional judge.
  Although no Bill to implement these proposals had been introduced, they still held the field when we came to office at the beginning of March 1974. We therefore, had to act quickly. We noted that the previous administration's White Paper proposals had come unstuck not because the vast majority of people objected to lay justice—far from it—but on the simple point that lay courts require a legally qualified clerk and that was not what the White Paper proposals would have given them. We noted also that the abolition of the lay courts subsequently proposed by the previous administration had not been well received in Scotland except amongst certain sections of the legal fraternity—no surprise there.
  My colleagues met representatives of the local authority associations who represented strongly in favour of lay participation in the administration of justice and emphasised the part played by local authorities and their members in the existing system. They put forward a

  1465
  strong case—as, I am bound to say, did the previous Government's White Paper—for the continuation of lay judges in the lower courts. By July, I was ready, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to announce my proposals. It was clear to us that what was required, and what would be most acceptable to the Scottish people, was a continuation of lay courts with legally qualified clerks and the defects of the existing courts removed—and there are defects.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he say whether there were any representations from anyone other than local authorities to retain the lay system of justice?
  Mr. Ross: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were—probably one from me as a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Rifkind: Who else?
  Mr. Ross: We could go on like this, all along the line.
  We recognise that there were defects in the old system. In too many cases the existing magistrates receive insufficient training for the work they are called upon to do. The criminal legal aid scheme does not extend to these courts and no accused person before them, therefore, is able to obtain legal aid. The public prosecutors in the 280-odd existing lay courts are not members of a service and are not subject to direction by the Lord Advocate.
  What the present Bill does is to provide for a continuation of lay summary justice in Scotland and, at the same time, to make provision for the removal of the defects in the existing system.
  One of the most important features of our proposals and one which has been widely welcomed is the emphasis placed on the provision of training for the justices of the peace. All justices will be expected to accept training appropriate to their experience, if any, and there is a power in the Bill to disqualify any justices who fail to accept training from sitting on the bench. This will apply not only to new justices but to existing justices and burgh magistrates, and to the justices
  1466
  to be appointed by district councils, to whom I shall refer later.
  Lack of training requirements and facilities for the judges of the existing lay courts is one of the great weaknesses at present, and those powers are designed to remedy this situation. In order to provide an immediate stimulus, a training officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
  Legal aid at an estimated cost of £130,000 annually will be available from the setting up of the courts from 16th May 1975.
  Under the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will take over, through the procurator-fiscal service, prosecution in these courts. The take-over will be completed by 16th May 1976.
  As the House knows, this Bill was introduced in another place on 13th November last year. The Bill provided for the appointment of judges from three sources—first, the burgh magistrates in office on 15th May 1975; secondly, nominations by islands and district authorities; and, thirdly, existing justices of the peace.
  In Committee in another place, however, the provisions in Clause 11 on nominations of justices of the peace ex-officio by islands and district authorities were removed, against the strong advice of my noble Friend the Minister of State, who gave a clear warning that we would seek to restore these provisions.
  As this is the first opportunity for me to comment on the matter, I wish to support what my noble Friend said and to repeat that we propose in Committee to restore these provisions in their original form.
  The Bill was further amended in another place on Report, when an addition was made to Clause 5, against the advice of my noble Friend. That was in relation to the Secretary of State's duty to appoint stipendiary magistrates. Again, we shall propose a suitable amendment in Committee.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Will the appointment of ex-officio magistrates include police judges who were attached to the former burghs?
  Mr. Ross: That is a good point. There is a measure of doubt whether "magistrates" includes police judges. Police judges tend to be the most experienced of the magistrates in the present system. We shall make it absolutely clear that they are covered by moving an appropriate amendment in Committee.
  I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Part I provides for the setting up of the system of district courts on 16th May 1975. There will be a district court for each commission area, except where the Secretary of State otherwise directs. A commission area is defined in Clause 26 as
  "a district or islands area within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973."
  There are one or two rural areas where there are virtually no burgh or justice of the peace courts at present because there are so few criminal cases to be dealt with. Those few are taken in the sheriff court. If the local authorities concerned take the view that a district court would not be necessary, I shall be prepared to consider directing accordingly, though I would not envisage that the power of direction would be used to any great extent.
  Clause 1(2) transfers to a justice of the peace functions of burgh magistrates not otherwise provided for and the remainder of this clause provides for proceedings to be continued smoothly over the transition to the new system and for the transfer of records and documents.
  Clause 2(1) provides that the commission area shall be the district of the district court and that the places at which it sits and the days and times when it sits shall be determined by the local authority concerned.
  Clause 2(2) provides that the bench shall be constituted by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices. This allows for the maximum flexibility. Scotland has a tradition of a single burgh magistrate on the bench, but the tradition is for two or more justices to sit together in the justice of the peace court. The Bill allows for local decisions on these matters.
  Clause 3(1) gives the district court the jurisdiction and powers of the existing courts. Under subsection (2), when the court is constituted by a stipendiary magistrate it will have, in addition, the
  1468
  summary criminal jurisdiction and powers of a sheriff. This preserves the present position in the case of a burgh court constituted by a stipendiary magistrate.
  Subsection (3) raises from £50 to £100 the fine which can be imposed by the lay court on convicting a person of a common law offence. Since the level was last raised in 1963, this increase is required to take account of the change in the value of money.
  Clause 4 is concerned with procedure and practice and applies the existing rules of procedure and practice to the new courts. The High Court is given power to regulate procedure and practice in the district courts.
  Clause 5 provides for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. Since, as I have indicated, it is bound to be debated in Committee I shall not enter now into any argument about its scope. There is room for argument over the extent of the powers which the Secretary of State should have under this clause. We think that subsection (4), which was not in the Bill as we drafted it, goes too far.
  Clause 6 is an important clause, concerning prosecutions. We have decided that prosecution in the new courts should become the responsibility of the procurator-fiscal service. The Crown Office has already been in touch with local authorities about the areas in which the procurator fiscal will be able to take over prosecutions from the beginning of the new system.
  I am pleased that my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate has felt able to take over the entire responsibility. This will be done in two phases. The first, from 16th May 1975, will cover about two-thirds of the commission areas. The second, from 16th May 1976, will cover all the remaining areas. Thus, the provisions in subsections (2) and (9) relating to district prosecutors are essentially transitional.
  Clause 7 requires the local authority to appoint a clerk of the district court who shall be legally qualified. The local authority associations have already confirmed that authorities will be willing to provide staff and at their request the clause is drafted to allow for part-time appointments and for the employment by agreement of an officer of a regional council.

  1469
  Clause 8(1) requires a local authority to provide suitable premises and facilities for the purposes of the court. Subsection (2), without prejudice to the general duty, eases the transition to the new system by providing that premises used to any extent for the purposes of the existing courts should continue to be made available by the authority concerned.
  Part II of the Bill is concerned with justices and clerks of the peace. Much of it is re-enactment of existing statute, and it may be sufficient if I describe briefly the new provisions in this part of the Bill. At present the appointment of justices is effected by the inscription of their names under the Secretary of State's authority in the commissions of the peace which have been issued in each county. Under Clause 9 from 16th May 1975 new commissions will be issued for district and island areas. Names will not be inscribed in these commissions, but appointments will be made by instrument signed by the Secretary of State.
  Clause 10 provides for the appointment as justices of the peace of burgh magistrates holding office immediately before 16th May 1975. Such justices and those already holding office will be treated as though they had been appointed under the provisions of Clause 9.
  In my announcement of the Government's proposals on 15th July 1974 I said that we intended that all police judges in office on 15th May 1975 would also be appointed justices of the peace as in many areas they are the most experienced judges in the existing courts, having generally been bailies before they became police judges.
  Some doubt has been expressed whether the term "magistrate" in Clause 10 would cover police judges and, in order to put the issue beyond doubt in Committee we shall propose an amendment to include a specific reference to police judges.
  Mr. Dempsey: This is a most important point. I should like publicly to thank my right hon. Friend for such profound consideration, but will he say, since a magistrate may act at the moment as a temporary justice of the peace, whether at the time of the dissolution of the burghs he intends the appointment of justices of the peace to be permanent?
  Mr. Ross: It will be permanent within the restrictions of age and everything else. The retirement age for JPs is 70. I do not know whether there is any such restriction in relation to bailies or police judges.
  Clause 10 also contains provisions about the determination of the commission areas in which justices are to hold office. Clause 11 in its amended form provides that all existing justices who hold office by virtue of any other office will cease to do so on 16th May 1975. As I have already said, we hope to restore to this clause the provisions on nomination of ex-officio justices by district and islands authorities which were removed in another place.
  Clause 14 confers on the Secretary of State a new power to make schemes and provide courses for the instruction of justices. Justices' committees to be appointed under Clause 16 will be required to implement and administer the schemes. All justices will be expected to accept training appropriate to their experience and under Clause 15 it will be possible for the Secretary of State to disqualify any who fail to accept training from sitting on the bench.
  Clause 16 on justices' committees is a new provision. There is no precise equivalent at present to the proposed justices' committee who under subsection (1) will be responsible for advising and assisting the local authority on matters relating to the administration of the court. The justices' committee will also approve the duty rota of judges and have special responsibilities for training of justices. The justices will elect the committee annually but any stipendiary magistrate will be a member of the committee by virtue of his office. Although Clause 17 is an important one, dealing with allowances, it is essentially a re-enactment of existing law to fit the new arrangements.
  Clause 18 provides for the appointment of a clerk of peace by the islands or district authority. This name is being retained for reasons of tradition; the duties of the new clerk of the peace are those of a clerk to the justices as a body and are listed in subsection (4). This clause, like Clause 7 on the clerk of the court and Clause 22 on the clerk to the licensing court, allows for a full-time or part-time appointment and for the

  1471
  appointment by agreement of an officer of a regional council. Thus the local authorities are responsible on the same basis for three appointments under the Bill; there is nothing to stop the same person being appointed to all three, or to two of them, according to local circumstances. The existing office of clerk of the peace will be discontinued and there is due provision for compensation in Clause 19.
  Part III, which is called "Miscellaneous and General", need not detain us long, tonight at any rate. The amendments to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 in Clause 21 pave the way for the introduction of legal aid in the district court. The annual cost of legal aid in the district court is estimated, as I have said, as £130,000. The introduction of legal aid will meet another of the main criticisms of the existing system, and our proposal for its introduction has been warmly welcomed. There has been a gap hitherto, in that there has been no provision for legal aid in the lower summary courts, and in view of Scotland's tradition of legal aid being available to all it is desirable that this gap should be filled.
  Since there was some confusion in another place about the dates of the coming into operation of the Bill, perhaps I should say a word about Clause 27(2). The sections referred to specifically in subsection (2) will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill will come into operation on 16th May 1975.
  Finally, since I have given notice already of some amendments for Committee stage, I ought to let the House know that there will probably have to be some rather technical amendments made in Committee or on Report to take account of the passage through Parliament of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill—a consolidation measure now being considered in another place.
  I hope that the House will agree that the Bill meets the objectives set by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. First, it contains a system which can operate from 16th May 1975 without undue disruption. Secondly it avoids the
  1472
  extremes which caused the criticisms of our predecessors' two sets of proposals. Thirdly, it preserves the good and democratic features of the existing system while introducing some long needed improvements.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the introduction of a Bill to reform the system of summary justice in Scotland. However, I cannot share his enthusiasm for the form that the Bill has taken. As he said, when we considered this matter when we were in Government we did not come to anything like the same conclusion as he has. The Secretary of State rather unfairly referred to the false starts and the volte-face and so on. When we were in Government we looked at this question in considerable depth. We published a very good White Paper which set out many of the considerations which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in the Bill. However, what I will not accept criticism for—and I make no apology for the change of policy that we adopted—is that, having published that White Paper and made the proposals, we were prepared to react to the various representations about the White Paper.
  The Secretary of State does less than justice to the course of action followed by the Conservative Government and to the kind of representations to which we paid attention. The right hon. Gentleman has simply paid attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) pointed out, to one area of representation—that of the existing local authorities and the members of the existing burgh courts. Under our proposals we were much more prepared to react, and we reacted to a much wider breadth of opinion. I wish that all Governments were prepared to be more sensitive to representations made about their White Papers. In our reaction to the various representations we showed not only a flexibility but a willingness to consider the strength of opinion and the views put to us. There was no blindness or stubbornness on our part to push through proposals which were not wholly appropriate for the situation.
  Mr. William Ross: I have never regarded White Papers as sacred documents. They should be liable to change, otherwise there could be no fruitful discussions as a result of them. Perhaps I could draw the hon. Member's attention to his Government's White Paper on local government reorganisation. His Government said that there were proposals in it which were non-negotiable, and these have proved terribly unpopular in Scotland. However, tearing up a White Paper and replacing it with a totally different system is a totally different matter.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that it is not in the right hon. Gentleman's nature to be flexible. Therefore, I see no point in pursuing the matter further. It shows an openness of mind and common sense to change proposals that are demonstrably wrong. I make no apology for that.
  I shall explain why we changed our proposals, because that will help to show the wrongness of the conclusions to which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have come. The change is a natural consequence of the reorganisation of local government. The basic position in our White Paper was that in the establishment of our new system of summary justice there should be a separation from the local authority of the new court set-up which was to replace the JP and burgh courts. The Secretary of State is now back to a close tie-up with the new local authorities. Our principle was one on which we received no opposition or representations. I believe that it was generally welcomed throughout Scotland that there should be a separation of the new summary courts from local government.
  The questions raised, the ones to which we reacted, concerned the principle and practicality of lay justice. In the White Paper we came down on the side of the principle of lay justice, which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in the Bill. The opposition to it turned on the question of practicality. It is true that much of the opposition to our White Paper and to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals came from legal opinion, from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Agents Society. But the right hon. Gentleman
  1474
  should not denegrate that, as he tended to do tonight. He should not say that the opposition came only from legal opinion. Just as we must take account of the representations of those who constitute the law magistracy, we should also take account of the wider opinion expressed from legal circles generally. There can be no question of simple self-interest in that expression of legal opinion, though that has sometimes been hinted. Those who opposed our White Paper, and now oppose the right hon. Gentleman's principles, have practical, sensible grounds for that opposition.
  Even among those who supported the lay justice, the problem turned on the practical question of staffing the courts and the essential need for them to be staffed by legally-qualified clerks or assessors. What was to be the source of those legally-qualified staff? We hoped to staff the courts through the sheriff clerk service, but that did not prove to be a practical possibility.
  Therefore, we had to examine the servicing of the existing courts, which was through the local authorities. But it was a basic principle, which we accepted from the beginning, that we wanted to get away from the direct connection with the local authorities.
  That left a third source of legally-qualified staff, which was lawyers already in practice in the different areas. It raised the whole question whether it was right to bring in people from private practice and the question of the availability of legal expertise in certain areas, particularly in the rural areas.
  I have gone over the argument quickly because a number of hon. Members want to speak, but I think that I have shown that on practical grounds there was good reason for calling in question some of the assumptions which were in our original White Paper and which underlie the Bill. That is one reason why we came to the decision that we should have professional judges.
  I believe that our proposals were justified on wider grounds than those, and it is on those wider grounds that I criticise the Bill. I was the Minister in the Scottish Office who had to handle the matter. I had to consider the higher principles on which this form of summary justice

  1475
  should be based. When we have a watershed in the reorganisation of local government, with the opportunity, of necessity, to reorganise summary justice and the whole system of justice throughout Scotland, it is important to return to the principles on which that justice should be based, and not simply try blindly to reproduce a system of justice similar to the existing one, as the right hon. Gentleman has done in the Bill.
  Two things bore with me in my consideration, and bear with me just as much today. The first is the quality of the justice to be administered. There will be argument tonight as to whether the quality of justice would be better under one system or another. My judgment is that a professional system is better. We accept it in the sheriff courts, so it is no innovation.
  The second important principle is a uniformity of justice, which I believe is better achieved through a professional system of magistrates and judges. Because he is professional and full-time, each judge handles a much greater number of cases, and, therefore, the opportunity for uniformity is that much greater. With due respect to the burgh courts—and there has been considerable criticism of them in another place and elsewhere—I believe that both quality and uniformity of justice are better achieved by professional judges than by amateurs.
  It is to the customer of the system that the quality and uniformity matter, and, in my view, the customer is the person who finds himself having to stand in a court and have justice administered to him. Through the professional system we are much more likely to be fair to that person than if we seek to please those currently administering that justice, as the right hon. Gentleman has done. It is the person to whom the justice is administered that matters to me, rather than the person who administers it.
  On those points of quality and uniformity of justice, and the standard of service received by those to whom it is administered, I believe that under the professional system we should have achieved a higher standard than we have achieved or are likely to achieve under an amateur system.
  1476
  There is another practical argument which I must adduce. I believe that the Secretary of State is losing the opportunity of unifying the whole system of summary justice throughout Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman rightly claims merit for unifying the system of prosecution. That is to be welcomed under the procurator fiscal system as administered by the Lord Advocate. The Bill offers an opportunity to unify the administration of summary justice in Scotland by bringing the justices within the sheriff court system. It is only a short time since the new sheriff court system was set up in Scotland. I am sorry that the opportunity has been missed.
  As I have said, we have recently set up the new sheriff court system. It would have made common sense in terms of efficiency of administration if we had given that structure the work load of what are called the lower or inferior courts instead of introducing separate district courts. I very much regret that the Government have not followed the lead that we gave them. They have missed an opportunity to improve and modernise the administration of justice in Scotland.
  I am by no means alone in making that comment. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister who winds up will be able to say any more on that topic. The right hon. Gentleman, when he responded to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands, made it clear that in changing the policy of the previous Government he was doing so as a result of the representations that he had received from those already staffing the magistracy in the lay courts in Scotland and as a result of the representations that he had made. We must remember that. I beg him to look further. What he has done has by no means received universal acclaim. A leader in the Glasgow Herald of 16th January reads:
  "It did not seem likely that he"—
  that is, the Secretary of State—
  "would take the opportunity not only of creating more efficient and professional lower Courts, but also of making Scotland a progressive force in the administration of justice."
  Obviously, hopes were high. The leader continues:
  "In dismissing the case for professional magistrates, Mr. Ross has ignored the clear case for lower Court reform."

  1477
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done. In a leader in the Scotsman of the same date—this is informed opinion and not just the opinion of lawyers—it is said
  "A great opportunity of combining local government reorganisation with the reform of the lower courts is being thrown away."
  That is precisely what has happened. The headline of an article in the Scotsman of 20th January reads
  "District courts could become battleground."
  The right hon. Gentleman is letting us in for that sort of situation. I believe that he has missed a good opportunity to reform the whole system of summary justice in Scotland.
  I now turn to one or two points of detail which I hope will be answered when the Minister winds up. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the representations—they were limited representations—that he has received. The House will be interested to know about the representations that he received from, for example, the central advisory committee of the justices of the peace. That is a body whose members were responsible in one area at least for administering lay justice in Scotland. It would be useful to the House to know the terms of their representations and advice.
  Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that from the ranks of the new local authorities he will obtain a sufficient number of justices of the peace? Those of us who sat on the Committee which handled local government reorganisation know that the job of the new councils, whether at regional or district council level, is much more onerous and more demanding than the job of the county and burgh councils. They have more people to represent and they have a more demanding task. Given that situation, and given the great keeness and enthusiasm of those who constitute the existing magistrates and justices, will the present attitude continue when the new authorities come into full operation in May and the increased demands are made?
  Next, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Training is essential for the operation of the system that he recommends, but it demands time. Given the time that the councillors will have to
  1478
  give to their various duties, will they have time for training? That is an important matter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about training and for his statement that a training officer will be appointed. But is there enough time between now and 16th May, when the new courts will come into being, when as yet no training has taken place? I hope that we shall hear what is being planned.
  My next point concerns legal aid. I welcome the extension of legal aid to the lower courts. At the same time, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has his eyes open to the fact that its introduction is likely to increase the work load of the courts. It is a good thing that legal aid should be provided, but it does not necessarily make sense to add to the work load at the same time. It makes little sense to do so when the right hon. Gentleman is retaining the lay magistrate administration of justice. As we all know, stipendiary magistrates can get through a far greater work load. It is contradictory to increase the work load and at the same time not introduce the sensible and logical reform of introducing magistrates who will be able to undertake a much greater work load.
  I must stress that I was disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the improvements made in another place. I hope that the Minister who winds up will have more to say about that. I do not believe that the appointment by local authorities of new justices of the peace is necessarily the most appropriate course to take. I would accept recommendation, but I believe that final consideration and appointment by the Secretary of State—namely, the practice that now exists—is a very much better way of proceeding. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again before he seeks to turn the Bill back in Committee about whether the initiative for the introduction of stipendiary magistrates is to lie in the hands of the Secretary of State or in the hands of the new local authorities. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about that instead of steamrollering the Bill back to what it was originally.
  Basically I do not like the Bill in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced it However, we have to have a Bill of this type before 16th May.

  1479
  Whilst I do not like it, I do not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House against it. With the exception of the matters that I have mentioned, I think that the Bill has been improved, and I do not think that we should divide against it. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that we shall reconsider our position if on Third Reading the Government have removed the improvements which were made in another place.
  The Government have missed a good chance of reforming and making more efficient the system of summary justice in Scotland. It is my regret and the regret of many people in Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman has let the chance slip him by.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I noted that the arguments of the hon. Member for North Angus and Meatus (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) were based on the legalistic point of view. My view is that the Secretary of State is right to retain a lay element on the bench. It is held in the Advocates Library in Edinburgh, and in other places, that laymen should not come to this House and attempt to alter the law without the advice of lawyers. When I introduced the First Offenders (Scotland) Bill in 1959 there were criticisms from the Advocates Library and elsewhere. People asked "Who is this man to intervene in the law?" My measure was later emasculated in the Criminal Justice Act.
  All the wisdom in the world and all the social justice does not reside in legal textbooks. We had to call on the Official Solicitor to get the Tory Government off the hook on one occasion. That was the result of the advocacy given at that time. Lay magistrates give a good deal of attention to cases. Take the example of the old days, and the order to buy or quit. The advice given to the person affected, such as a small shopkeeper, was to go not to lawyers but to lay magistrates, the justices of the peace, and to ask what was to be done. These people had no books. All they did was to go to Kilmarnock or Ayr court and say "Your honour, who suffers the greater hardship? The landlord without his rent, or me without a house?" There is no legal textbook which will give an analytical
  1480
  description of subsections (3), (4) or (5) of the "Buy or Quit Act".
  I sat for some time as a lay magistrate, so I do have experience on this subject. The will of the Sovereign means habitual obedience on the part of the subject. The lawyers listen to the case, nod, and then preen themselves thinking what splendid magistrates they are. Those who sit as justices of the peace are involved in expense. They have to go to court on Monday mornings and employers do not make up their pay. The lay magistrate occupies that position because of the will of the community. These men and women have the capability to interpret the law. They need a lot of guile. Often there may be a vacancy for the superintendent which has a nice house with the job. That could mean that a lot of cases of every kind are brought before the magistrates.
  I am 100 per cent. behind the Secretary of State in his endeavour to preserve the lay element and to see that there is an even-handed administration of the law.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. George Thompson: In the midst of so many legal luminaries of various shades of splendour I take heart from the fact that the Secretary of State was, like me, a teacher. If he is able to speak on the Bill I see no reason why I ought not to add my contribution. I have never been in a court, except perhaps once, on a minor charge in the Army. I was suitably admonished for skipping rugby practice.
  If I were to appear before a court—which God forbid—I would rather be dealt with by a stipendiary magistrate who is trained in the law than by a lay magistrate. Many people in Scotland share that view, including some who have been dealt with by lay magistrates. Other professions do not accept laymen. They are not accepted in medicine. No matter how trivial my complaint, I go to a qualified doctor. I do not usually go to the village spaewife to consult her about what remedy I should take.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: It might be better.
  Mr. Thompson: That is the hon. Member's opinion. I dare say that self-medication is often equally effective.

  1481
  The teaching profession has always been most jealous of its prerogatives and has not normally accepted laymen. I could also quote the ministry and the Civil Service. We always want trained people to deal with these important aspects of our lives. If we will not allow lay folk in these professions, why should we allow them in the judiciary? If it is argued that lay justices introduce an element of democracy and if democracy is what we are seeking, we ought to be arguing for the election of lay magistrates and not for their nomination in one way or another.
  If we have laymen on the bench in the lower courts I fail to see why we should not have them also in the higher courts. If a lay magistrate is needed in a lower court to understand the ordinary circumstances of people's lives, is it not equally true in the higher courts, which are dealing with people in severe difficulties? I do not think that a mixed system of lay and stipendiary magistrates has much to commend it.
  In this case we are saying that the sole criterion for determining which sort of magistrate we shall have is the amount of business that passes through a court. It is not the amount of business but the fair administration of law which should be the criterion. Might it not be thought, from a reading of the Bill, that the lower courts are less important than the higher courts? In some respects this is true, but it is the case, too, that the lower courts are desperately important because so many people who become criminals make their first contact with the administration of justice through the lower courts.
  It is essential to have a fair system of justice in these lower courts—a system that is seen to be fair. In that way there is a good chance that the budding criminal will give up the course on which he has set out. Such fairness is much more likely to be achieved by paid magistrates than by unpaid amateurs. If there is to be overall fairness in Scotland it is more likely to come about through the operation of a small corps of professional magistrates than by the operation of a large body of semi-trained magistrates.
  I do not believe that the training envisaged in the Bill, unless it is spelt out much more clearly, will necessarily result in a trained magistracy. Naturally, we
  1482
  welcome the extension of legal aid to the district court. I commend this provision. If I might make a suggestion, it is that an accused person should, in certain circumstances, be allowed to opt for trial before the sheriff rather than the district court.
  I would like to ask, is it envisaged that the prosecutor in the district court will be a qualified person? I understand that in the lower courts the prosecutor is often unqualified.
  My hon. Friends and I will not divide the House tonight, because the district courts must be in being by May, but we must register our strong reservations on the method employed by the Secretary of State to continue the lower courts in Scotland.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: The Bill means a transformation of the operation of justice in the lower courts throughout Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised that point. We shall lose some magistrates courts which have been in operation for nearly 700 years. In my constituency they have been in operation for 150 years and nearly 200 years, respectively. It is therefore only right that my right hon. Friend should apply his mind to the replacement of this system of justice in view of the reorganisation of local government.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his lucid presentation of the main purpose of the Bill and commend him on the deep penetrative thought he has given to the question of devising a system of democratic justice. No doubt he, like others of us, has been subjected to pressure to the effect that there should be a full-time legal representative known as a stipendiary magistrate or that there should be a system of lay justice.
  I am at a loss to understand the argument of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), who talked about the need for professionalism in local courts. There are all sorts of courts. There are industrial courts, in which a person may be found guilty or not guilty of misconduct. No one suggests that there should be a full-time legal representative in those courts. There are social insurance courts, in which a person may be found guilty or not guilty of failing to comply with the

  1483
  standard period of notice to entitle him to receive benefit. No one suggests that there should be a legal representative in those courts. There are children's panels. Would anyone in his senses suggest that a legally qualified person should determine whether a juvenile has committed an offence?
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a child who appears before a children's panel does not accept that he is guilty the matter must be tried by the sheriff? Does the hon. Gentleman know of any example in which a person may have a criminal offence on his record for the rest of his life, or for many years, which has not been determined by a legally-qualified person?
  Mr. Dempsey: I have known of cases where an offence has appeared on a charge sheet in a local magistrates' court with no legal representatives on the bench.
  I am at a loss to understand some of the arguments. A lay magistrate does not simply listen to the case for and the case against and decide the matter. A legal fiscal prosecutes on behalf of the authorities and a legally-qualified clerk advises him on the law. In October, in court, I gave a decision which has been appealed against. It was an important decision. It might be a test case. It was an unusual charge. I had the assistance of a legally-qualified clerk in drawing up the presentation of a stated case to the fiscal.
  I am staggered that the hon. Member for Galloway should give the impression that unfairness results unless there is a legal representative on the bench. That is untrue. I say that as a practising justice of the peace. I do my stints during the parliamentary recesses. I did a stint during the Christmas Recess. I am already booked to do a stint at Easter.
  We bend over backwards to assist the accused person. He may have no experience of courts, and therefore we go out of our way and give him every encouragement to ensure that his view is not only fully explained but fully understood before a decision is made. I cannot say the same about some of the sheriff courts. I could give examples of unfairness which have occurred while legal experts have been sitting on the bench.
  Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is why we have a system of courts of appeal? I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the many excellent lay magistrates in Scotland that there is a feeling among some of us that the best traditions, of which the hon. Gentleman is an excellent representative, are not always followed.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about a system of appeal for the legal intelligentsia. There is also a system of appeal for the local courts. I sent a person to an institution for training. Because of the remarkable progress which he made, an appeal was lodged with the Secretary of State, who wrote to the two justices of the peace who had sentenced him—he does not realise that I was one of them—and asked whether they agreed with the recommendation from the superintendent of the institution that there should be some remission of the sentence. After studying the recommendation, I agreed. There is therefore a system of appeal, whether it be for justice of the peace courts or sheriff courts.
  One must decide whether one believes in full-time stipendiary magistrates. There is a case for and a case against. If one examines both attitudes, as I have done, it becomes a matter of opinion.
  I give my right hon. Friend credit for arriving at the opinion that lay magistrates should continue. In these days there is too much expertise. We have only to set up a small department and, overnight, a huge army of experts appears. There are some in my right hon. Friend's Department. One of them wrote to me telling me that the JP courts were finished and suggesting that I, too, was finished. I have done JP service for 20 years and have never charged the authorities a halfpenny. I have never had my bus fare or even a cup of tea, but I am sure that the gentleman who wrote that letter enjoys a good fat salary. I am a great believer in voluntary effort. As long as we have voluntary effort our country will go from strength to strength. A valid reason for the Bill to be given a Second Reading is that my right hon. Friend recognises that voluntary effort.
  In the administration of justice I am the first to concede that there are different attitudes, different decisions and different

  1485
  punishments in the enforcement of the law, but that is not all the responsibility of the lay justice; it is the responsibility of the courts. For example, under the Burgh Police Acts the maximum fine for a person who is convicted of committing a nuisance may be £2, but in the court in which I operate the first fine is £10. It would cost much less to spend a penny than to commit an offence in the main streets of any town that comes within the jurisdiction of my court. There is a disparity between the fines, not between the lay justices. We have to adjust the law to achieve the desirable degree of uniformity.
  The extension of legal aid to lay justices' courts will mean much extra work for those courts. I predict that the first result of that extension will be in the increased number of trials that will take place in lay courts. Even in a JP court a trial might take several hours. No doubt there is an argument in favour of legal aid for certain offences, but the extension of legal aid will mean a substantial increase in the number of sittings of the court and the length of time the court will have to sit. My right hon. Friend must ensure an adequate supply of justices to serve those courts.
  If the legal judiciary were to be concerned with minor offences, such as dropping litter, breaches of the peace, breaking glass and committing nuisances, it would clutter up the legal administration and there would be chaos. Minor offences must be kept separate to avoid chaos. In the sheriff courts the period of waiting before cases are tried is six months, nine months or even 12 months. What will happen if the courts are cluttered up with minor offences? I am glad that my right hon. Friend has absorbed that and avoided chaos by continuing the system of lay justice.
  How are justices of the peace to be attracted? I sit as a JP in a court in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) in Bellshill. All JPs are expected to serve twice a year. Some do not, and we are lucky if half serve once a year. That is an illustration of how difficult it is to get JPs to turn out and fulfil the undertaking they give when they take the oath to serve. That is a weakness which my right hon. Friend will have to overcome.
  1486
  If we are amalgamating the courts and there is to be only one court in a town, that court will be busy. It will have to meet four and possibly five days a week, and it will be necessary to recruit more JPs to serve in the court. I do not understand the anomaly of having two JPs to decide cases. One magistrate can determine an issue, but it takes two JPs to determine the same issue on the same type of offence and to administer the same Act.
  The Minister said that the situation would be at the discretion of the local authority. I hope that he will pay due attention to the situation, and that if cases tend to pile up and there is a shorage of justices, one justice of the peace will be able to determine them.
  I believe that there should be some provision in the Bill to deal with non-attending justices of the peace—people who want the honour of the position but do not intend to fulfil their obligations. I see no provision in the Bill by which such people may be removed from the justices' panel. I hope that the Government will examine this matter before the Committee stage to determine a formula by which people who fail to satisfy their promise to the Secretary of State may be removed from the panel.
  When the Minister replies, will he explain the system of allowances? The Bill covers travelling allowance and subsistence, but do the relevant provisions cover loss of earnings? Loss of earnings in pursuit of duty can be a large drawback to a lay justice of the peace. Many working people are unable to claim against loss of earnings, and this may hinder their enthusiasm to attend court sittings. I hope that we shall be given some assurance on this point tonight.
  If loss of earnings is included in the definition of "expenses", may we be told whether there is a ceiling to the eligible amount which a person may claim? At my last court sitting I overheard a business man complaining about the amount of business he had lost by having to sit in the Bellshill Court. These are important considerations, which must be borne in mind before people accept nominations as justices of the peace.
  With regard to the appointment of justices, is it intended to confine appointments solely to those from elected district

  1487
  councils, or will the system embrace other persons in the community who give excellent voluntary service? Under the present system, I know from personal experience that in Lanark such people are in the main not considered, because nominees are put forward by political parties. I have no objection to that system, but I am emphasising the fact that there are other people, who give wonderful voluntary service to the community morning, noon and night, who should be considered for these posts. I should like the Minister to consider extending the appointment of justices of the peace to those who are not elected, and I hope that we shall hear something on this score in the Minister's reply.
  I believe that the Bill is an able, earnest and thoughtful endeavour to replace the existing court system. I have no doubt that these measures will succeed. We have a tradition of service, and it is a tradition of which we should be rightly proud. I refer to the administration of justice without fear or favour.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: In view of the obvious long and worthy experience of the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) within the lay system, I wish that I could agree with him, but I cannot. I hold the view already expressed that these proposals represent an opportunity missed to improve the situation.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) pointed out that in the main the Government's proposals run counter to the advice tendered and representations made by the Scottish Law Society, the Bar, and many social workers. It is a pity that the Government have not taken this opportunity to replace lay participation with a fully professional judiciary. Basically we accepted the Conservative Government's proposals to bring all summary criminal work within the sheriff court system.
  We feel that this Bill has many grave deficiencies. I accept that, time and the situation being what they are, it probably makes no sense to divide the House, but before the Bill goes into Committee the Secretary of State should be clear that
  1488
  many people are unhappy about the situation.
  There are a number of objections to the Bill, but probably the most serious is the provision to enable district councils, if they wish, to appoint up to one-third of their number to serve as justices of the new district courts.
  There is already a great deal of evidence to show that in some instances magistrates' decisions are very much coloured by their own views on and philosophy for dealing with crime. It is not uncommon for the rotation of magistrates to bring with it a complete change in sentencing policy.
  The proposals in the Bill will still further politicise the lower courts. I think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie touched on that point at the end of his speech, when he encouraged the Secretary of State to consider whether some way could be devised to involve in the lay system persons not within political parties. If magistrates were appointed en masse from one political party it would have a bad effect on the community's respect for the law.
  Another objection to lay magistrates concerns the lack of legal training and, therefore, the tendency for non-uniformity in sentencing. I doubt whether the proposals for the provision of specialised training courses will fill the bill. One of the serious faults in the present system is the lack of contact between the bailies on the one hand and the local sheriff on the other.
  If this system is to work—I suppose that the system will come into being whether we like it or not—district court judges will have to be in regular consultation and contact with local sheriffs to achieve co-ordination and consistency of sentencing. I accept that at any level in the courts system there will be a certain inconsistency in sentencing, but we should attempt as far as possible to achieve consistency. I believe that it would best be achieved if we enabled those who have professional training to make the decisions. It will be even more important, in view of the intention expressed in the Bill to introduce legal aid into district courts. We applaud and accept that proposal, but it would be a bad thing if people found that it was

  1489
  easier to get legal aid in a sheriff's court than in a district court.
  At the end of the day regular consultation between the district judges and the sheriff will probably be a more effective form of training for the judge than the proposed special courses.
  I should like to ask the Minister, when replying, to explain something that I am not clear about. The Bill as it stands envisages that responsibility for prosecution in the district courts will be taken over by the Crown Office. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for any length of time knows that the Crown Office is already desperately short of procurators fiscal. Equally, there is a shortage—one may say so within brackets—of procurators fiscal of calibre. Where are men to be found to prosecute in the district courts? The process will probably occupy a considerable length of time, which is why the Bill provides for district councils to appoint prosecutors to function until the Crown Office is able to take over, as it presumably will, district by district.
  What will happen then is that, first, the cities will be taken over, because they represent the largest and most serious problems. Gradually, the smaller towns will follow, so that in the end there will be a division between city and county for a fair period of time, with the city prosecutors being appointed and paid for by the Crown and with the county district prosecutors being paid for by the local authorities. I would have thought that that would be unsatisfactory. I should like to know what time scale the Government envisage, and whether they are taking any steps to accelerate recruitment in that regard.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie dwelt for some time on the justices of the peace whom we now have. He referred, in a way critically, to the fact that some justices of the peace are not exactly active attenders on the bench. That is undeniably true. Nevertheless, it is also true that although they are not very active in that regard they also serve a useful rôle in the community in doing those small things which JPs are able to do.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said that it was an honour for a worthy citizen, and a recognition that
  1490
  he was a person of some value in the community. I am reluctant to see that honour—it is not simply an honour—taken away, so that we are left only with those who are on active service, so to speak. It might be better to call the new district JPs bailies, or something like that, because we shall not have bailies any more. Is it not possible to retain the usefulness of the existing JPs?
  Thirdly, the Bill says nothing about honorary sheriffs, who are now an important part of the lay participation process. Will they be given training? What will happen to them? I cannot say that the system of honorary sheriffs, in general, is one which I greatly admire. I should like to know what the situation will be.
  As to cost, I think the hon. Gentleman indicated that it will be about £25,000 per annum more than the present cost. That is perhaps not a very large sum for a country the size of Scotland. Nevertheless, at the end, we shall still not have a professional judiciary, which is regrettable.
  On balance, I say in conclusion that we—I think this applies to most lawyers in Scotland—are opposed to the setting up of district courts in Scotland. Scotland has, rightly, long prided itself on having justice administered, in the main, by professional judges. Historically, the lay participation system came from England. I do not say that from a nationalist point of view. The Liberal Party prefer the sheriff court system.
  We are bound to suspect that the influence of existing lay magistrates, many of whom are councillors, has played too prominent a part in determining the Government's view. I know that many lay magistrates do an excellent job. But, in the same way, there were many excellent teachers who were without qualifications. I must say that I accepted the view completely, at the time that we set up the General Teaching Council, that we were robbing the education service of a great many valuable people. However, on balance, we accepted the proposal, initiated as it was by the present Secretary of State. Liberals think it better to have professionals, and the lack of them cannot be remedied by training courses. I am sure that the Lord Advocate agrees that a judge develops a judicial mind over

  1491
  a long period of time, through sustained experience.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: That is one of the problems.
  Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said, there are different points of view. But that is basically our view. We lean towards the professional system, and do not believe the lay system to be satisfactory. However, we shall not divide the House, for the very reasons advanced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Wheatley Commission. Will he tell us why that commission expressed the belief that lay courts of summary jurisdiction could be reconstituted conveniently within the new structure?
  Mr. Johnston: I shall. It was because the great majority of the commission felt that way.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: It is unfortunate that we have heard so many hon. Members on the Opposition benches who are looking for the professional.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Too many.
  Mr. McElhone: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nevertheless their comments about the lay magistrate and about the amateur are unworthy of the many dedicated justices of the peace and magistrates who have served in the lower courts for so many years. They have done yeoman service to the community. It was a grave omission on the part of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) not to pay tribute, now that that service is to be ended, to the many thousands of men and women who have given their services voluntarily. Many have lost time from work and received no compensation. Many have lost promotion opportunities. Many with small businesses have suffered. But they have given their services willingly, and it is to the discredit of this House that no one so far has paid tribute to the long service given by the amateur, the lay, magistrate to the community. I hope that that error will be corrected before the end of the debate.
  1492
  There is also some misunderstanding, especially on the part of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, about the job of lay magistrates. The hon. Gentleman appears not to understand the type of crimes dealt with by them. We are not talking about road traffic offences or assaults on bus crews. We are talking about trivial offences involving breaches of the peace, stairhead quarrels and similar matters.
  It has always been our attitude that a man should be able to be judged by his peers. The quality of mercy can well come not from someone with a law degree, because there is such a place as the university of life—often a better place than Gilmour Hill, Strathclyde or Edinburgh.
  A man who is an engineer, a railway engine driver or a shop-keeper can well understand the pressures and dilemmas of people living in the slums or in stress areas, with no community facilities for their young people. The quality of mercy rests better, on balance, with the lay magistrate because he is the person from within the community. It is claimed that sentencing in magistrates' courts is erratic, But anyone who has been to the Court of Session or any other high court, or has read their proceedings, can discover the number of times that these highly qualified and skilled people have been criticised because of misdirections of juries. Recently in Glasgow there was the case of a certain lady who, to all appearances, was guilty of a certain crime, but who, because of a technicality—misdirection of the jury—is no longer in the custody of Her Majesty.
  One does not like to denigrate one's own constituency but, as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns knows, from his period of office as Under-Secretary of State, I am not without experience of writing to the Scottish Office on various matters. I have had lack of success on a certain case which is interesting my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It concerns a person with the same name as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—which must demean my value to those of my constituents who are in the care of Her Majesty at present. But if my stock has gone down, it is because the attitude of my right hon. Friend has not corresponded to my thinking on that case.

  1493
  Be that as it may, having had experience of advice centres and service as a magistrate—as far as I know, I am still a police judge—I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who castigated those magistrates who do not sit on the bench often. There are other rôles for justices of the peace besides sitting in court, such as witnessing and signing passport forms, and—dare I say it to those representing areas outside Glasgow?—forms testifying to lost pawn tickets. There are few of those in Glasgow today.
  Therefore, there is still a vital rôle for a JP in many ways. Witnessing signatures is important. Many firms have gone into liquidation, and claims are made by workers for their wages or by small shopkeepers for their debts to be paid. Has anyone seen a form which has been signed or counter-signed by a JP in a bankruptcy case? I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate nods. He should understand the position. There is a great deal of work for JPs within the community.
  Mr. Dempsey: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if it were explained to them that all they had to do was sign forms no justice would be administered at all?
  Mr. McElhone: I was merely making the point that, with the many forms which have to be signed today, and with many other duties, there is a rôle for the JP who might not have time, because of other commitments, to take his place often in the burgh court. There is room for both.
  I make the same argument about stipendiary magistrates. I am not arguing for the one against the other. I am saying that in these large areas there is a rôle for the stipendiary magistrate and a rôle for the lay magistrate. With the new district councils in being, the hon. Member for North Angus and Meares expects there to be stipendiary magistrates instead of lay magistrates. I wonder whether he has sat in a court of the type we are talking about where one finds what I would call sausage-machine justice. Listening to perhaps 30 or 40 cases a day which are boringly repetitive, a stipendiary magistrate becomes apathetic.
  1494
  I believe that there is a true story of a stipendiary who got so fed up with the number of similar cases coming before him that he fell into a sort of daze and said to one defendant, without even listening to the evidence, "Thirty days—and if there had been a shred of evidence against you, I would have made it 60." That sums up the atmosphere of many stipendiary courts. There is nothing more melancholy than spending five days a week listening to a procession of similar cases.
  There is no comparison with the sheriff court, where many cases take much longer and sheriffs do not have to spend so much time. There is a case for the lay person doing this work. It is no good arguing about devolution and bringing decision making down to the grass roots, with community councils or school councils, if, at the vital stage of a lower court, the lay magistrate is displaced.
  Who will decide, under Clause 21, how legal aid is to be awarded? Anyone with experience of the sheriff court will know that the sheriff decides, that it is not an automatic right and that there is no appeal against refusal. I know of horrifying cases of legal aid being denied to people who, in my opinion and that of many solicitors, deserved it. When a person goes to a district court, will legal aid be automatic or will he have to apply to the procurator fiscal or the sheriff? At the moment, if the sheriff thinks that an applicant is guilty, he does not give legal aid; in other words, he prejudges the case. There is a complexity of laws about legal aid, and I hope that the criteria will be spelled out. If common sense had prevailed, my attempt to insert a clause about legal aid in the last Bill discussed today would have been successful. Nevertheless, I hope that the other place will think about this matter.
  The district courts will now take over licensing functions. I have sat as a senior magistrate and chairman of a licensing court in Glasgow, which is no mean ex perience. Nothing is said in the Bill about confirmation courts which hear appeals from refusals to grant licences—sometimes about grant of licences. The quorum in the Glasgow Confirmation Court, the biggest in Scotland, is 23, but the anomaly is that the magistrates who

  1495
  made the original decision at the magistrates court, where the number is 19, are allowed to sit at the confirmation court. This means that a man is both judge and jury, that after he has approved or opposed an application which may have caused great conflict in the local community he can decide it again in the appeal court.
  That is totally wrong, and the Bill says nothing about it. If these licensing functions are to be taken over, the matter must be done properly, because a great deal of bitterness can be created in a community over allocation of licences. I could spend a great deal of time on the problems of the allocation of licences and the trouble this has caused. Nevertheless, this point must be borne in mind. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the confirmation court procedure, because I am sure that it has been missed by the skilful draftsmen who have drawn up the Bill.
  One could continue at great length. However, not having had the charity of the Chair during the two-day debate on devolution, I shall respect the wishes of those who still await a chance to speak because, having endured two days on the back benches jumping up and down, which was a painful experience, I shall resume my seat with much still to say but with due regard to the matter of short speeches, which I hope will be the order of the day.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am happy to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), and to agree that there may well be a continuing rôle for justices of the peace in witnessing documents and duties of that kind. The hon. Gentleman commented on the state of lay justice when he described himself as being, so far as he knew, still a police judge.
  Mr. McElhone: Up to yesterday.
  Mr. Rifkind: Indeed. In this debate I should perhaps declare what could be a double interest, being both an advocate at the Scots Bar and a former member of a local authority.
  In considering the Government's position and their reversal of the previous Conservative Government's policy, it is
  1496
  perhaps interesting and significant that that reversal has taken place with a minimum of consultation. No one doubts that when the Conservative Government eventually came down in favour of abolishing the system of lay magistrates and replacing it by a stipendiary system, it was the result of a large and extensive consideration of the views of local authorities, the legal profession and other interested parties. Yet when the present Government reversed that decision and decided to continue with the lay system, it was stated that they had not carried out an extensive re-examination of new ways of incorporating lay justices into a new set-up and that what they had produced was the best available in the time.
  The Secretary of State made quite clear what we already knew—that there had been large numbers of representations from local authorities suggesting that the lay system should be continued. But when I asked him to name any other persons or organisations which had made similar representations, other than the local authorities which are obviously interested parties, the only person who had given similar advice to whom he could refer—and no doubt a person with great authority and importance in these matters—was himself. That must have carried a great deal of weight with the Secretary of State. It does not suggest that the demand for the retention of the lay system is something shared with anyone other than lay magistrates themselves.
  A similar argument cannot be true about the other side of this case. While it is true that the legal profession almost unanimously believes that the lay system is undesirable at present, there are many others who also take that view. We have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), neither of whom would have been suggested to be trying to further the interests of the legal profession for their own sake. Nevertheless, they strongly put forward the view that this is not in the interests of the people of Scotland.
  I should like to refer the Secretary of State to the debate in the other place, and a remark of Lord Wallace of Campsie, who, I understand, was appointed by the Secretary of State to the

  1497
  chairmanship of the East Kilbride Development Corporation and is, I presume, not to be reckoned as a person interested in the legal profession. He said:
  "For my part … I strongly recommend that wherever it is justified stipendiary magistrates should be appointed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 1422.]
  Clearly, there is a widespread view not simply among the legal profession that, while there has been much to be said for the system of lay magistrates, it has produced many iniquities, unfairnesses and anomalies, which should not continue at present.
  I want to make one point which has not so far been made in the debate. If at the end of the day it is believed desirable by the Government to retain a system of lay magistrates, it should be remembered that there are two quite different forms of lay magistracy which can be used. There is the system which has worked very well in England for many years. That system was originally produced by a Conservative Government when they were still thinking in terms of a lay magistracy. That is that people should be appointed as lay magistrates by the Secretary of State on the basis that he would appoint them because he believed that they were suitable to act as magistrates. If we are to have a lay magistracy, I can see a strong argument for such a system of appointment. One of the most iniquitous parts of the Government's intentions is not that they want to continue with the lay magistracy but that they want to ensure that a large part of the selection of those who should be lay magistrates should rest with local authorities.
  That would be all very well if one believed for one minute that local authorities when appointing magistrates take into account as the only important factor, or even as the major factor, the suitability of persons to be lay magistrates. I have no doubt that by chance and on the law of averages many persons who are appointed by local authorities to be magistrates, such as the hon. Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and for Queen's Park, are first-class magistrates, but both hon. Members will accept and will admit that they were not originally appointed
  1498
  because it was believed that they had special qualifications for the job, unless Glasgow is very different from the rest of Scotland in this respect as well as in every other. They will, I am sure, accept that they were appointed because it was their turn to be appointed, either because everybody senior to them had been appointed or because those senior to them who had not been appointed did not wish to be appointed.
  Mr. McElhone: That is grossly unfair, not only to Glasgow but to other people, particularly to justices of the peace. However, it must be admitted that the system of choosing magistrates has a certain element of "Buggins's turn next" about it. There are many cases in which people decided that they would not accept appointments as magistrates until they had served as councillors for several years.
  Mr. Rifkind: I accept that fully. I do not doubt that the hon. Member is correct in that respect. My point—the hon. Member has not refuted it, nor has he sought to refute it—was that when eventually people were appointed magistrates it was because they said that they were willing to serve and because the local authority was willing to appoint them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Queen's Park does not seek to suggest that when Glasgow Corporation, Edinburgh Corporation or any other local authority elects bailees it takes into account the suitability of the person that it put forward to become a magistrate.
  Mr. McElhone: That might well be said of High Court judges as well. I speak for myself. In Glasgow we had voluntary training schemes. We went down to the court in the evening and had the benefit of the procurator fiscal and others who guided us in the elementary practice of the law.
  Mr. Rifkind: Again, there is no real disagreement between the hon. Member and myself. I have no doubt that many of those who were appointed were only too happy and willing to undergo training to make them better magistrates than they would otherwise have been. However, we come back to the point that those people were not appointed because of their suitability or likely suitability to be good magistrates. Unlike sheriffs and

  1499
  judges—who, I fully accept, can turn out not to be good sheriffs or good judges—there is the important distinction that the people we are considering have not had legal training, whereas every sheriff and judge has had many years of legal training and experience behind him before being appointed.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Is not the hon. Gentleman again pointing to the difference of view between the two sides of the House? Is he not saying that there is no place for a lay judge? We on this side are saying that there is a place for the uninstructed layman to be a judge. There are people such as those who have been mentioned this evening who are ideally fitted to fill that niche.
  Mr. Rifkind: I hope that, if the Lord Advocate accepts that view, the Government will accept the amendments made in the other place. The whole purpose of the major part of those amendments was to say "By all means let us retain the lay system, but let it be the Secretary of State who appoints the people whom he believes, taking into account the circumstances, will, with the right sort of training, make suitable and good magistrates".
  Mr. Small: There are many people throughout Scotland whom the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman and I would acknowledge to be suitable candidates. The advice of the lord lieutenant of the county must be relied on. The Secretary of State cannot always know. Taking a cross-section of 1,000 people, I could not name more than 10 suitable candidates, any more than the hon. Gentleman could.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the many thousands of appointments by the Secretary of State have no significance in that respect, because the Secretary of State may not know the people concerned personally but acts on advice. No one is suggesting that the Secretary of State should know every individual personally. However, the choice should not be as it has been in the past and will be in the future if the Bill goes through unchanged. The power to choose individuals will be in the hands of the district councils. Clearly, the Government intend that the councils will nominate people and that the Secretary
  1500
  of State will automatically accept them unless they have been guilty of some criminal offence or some other gross unsuitability for the job.
  I can accept that if there are to be lay magistrates the Secretary of State should appoint them, but I can see no justification for the continuation of the present system. The hon. Member for Queens Park and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie may be determined suitable to be appointed lay magistrates, but there are others, in particular the individuals we all know about, who have made a farce and a disgrace of the system and have given it a bad name in certain quarters. Those are the sort of people who ought not to be appointed automatically.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: With his experience in the courts, the hon. Member will recognise that there can be a difference in judgment by sheriffs, let alone stipendiary magistrates. There will be a considerable reduction in the numbers who will be elected to Scottish local authorities under the new system, and, therefore, the number of people who will be unsuitable for appointment to the bench should be considerablv reduced.
  Mr. Rifkind: I would be more inclined to believe that if I had not had experience of local government. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cooke) will confirm that in Edinburgh town council appointments to the magistrates' bench were entirely a matter of seniority, and that applied to both the political parties. I see no reason to believe that this is going to change under the new district councils, and I would be most surprised if the rest of Scotland acted any differently. That is what worries we. While many of these appointments turn out to be very good, others are deplorable.
  Mr. Gourlay: Some authorities in Scotland have made a point of making the newest members of the authority magistrates, which I thoroughly disagree with. I would have thought that the obvious choice would have been to select the most experienced candidates. Under the new set-up this is more likely to occur.
  Mr. Rifkind: It is as wrong to appoint someone because he is the newest as it is

  1501
  to appoint someone because he is the most senior. The proper criterion should be suitability, but very few local authorities have appointed bailies and magistrates on that basis. The hon. Member knows that if appointment was in the hands of the Secretary of State that would be the criterion, and that would be much more acceptable and agreeable. I believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland, even those who support the principle of a professional magistracy, would agree with me.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not wish to argue against the hon. Member's case, which is pretty well proved, but there is one worrying aspect. If we accept his proposition that the lay magistracy should disappear, do trained legal personnel exist to fill the gap?
  Mr. Rifknd: In my view, they do, because there is the very great difference that if we had a trained magistracy, a stipendiary magistracy, because it was acting on a full-time basis it would be possible to provide a service. In Glasgow there are two stipendiary magistrates who take a large proportion of the burden of problems which would otherwise fall on lay magistrates. In other parts of Scotland where there is a sparse population we could provide for itinerant sheriffs, and a similar provision could operate with the stipendiary magistrates.
  Two further matters worry me. First, under Clause 3 the powers are given dependent upon whether a local authority has decided to opt for a lay magistrate system on a system of stipendiary magistrates. Subsection (2) says:
  "A district court when constituted by a stipendiary magistrate shall, in addition to the jurisdiction and powers mentioned in subsection (1) above, have the summary criminal jurisdiction and powers of a sheriff."
  That is every important. It means that one local authority may have lay magistrates, who will have a maximum sentencing power of 60 days' imprisonment, while another district council may have chosen to have a stipendiary magistrate, who will have the maximum power of penalty of three months. Both might be trying exactly the same offence in exactly similar circumstances, but different maximum penalties can be imposed, depending on whether a stipendiary or a lay magistrate hears the case. That is potentially unfair.
  The Lord Advocate: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House. What he has described is the present position where there is a stipendiary court and also a lay magistrates court.
  Mr. Rifkind: I fully accept that, but it is not a good argument for continuing with the situation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that it is a desirable situation, I should like to hear the arguments for it. This is an opportunity to remove that anomaly.
  It is one thing to say that different courts may impose different sentences because of the personality or views of the presiding judge. It is another thing to say that a different maximum penalty could be imposed depending on which part of Scotland one lives in. In an area such as Glasgow there is almost certain to be a stipendiary, even under the new system. A person appearing before him may receive a three months' sentence, whereas in Edinburgh, where there are lay magistrates, for the same offence in similar circumstances a person may get only 60 days. That is not justifiable. It is no excuse to say that the situation has been like that and that it should continue. Unless there are other arguments, I hope the Government will consider having the same maximum penalties for the same offences.
  My final point concerns legal aid. Like every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, I welcome it, but it will mean not only a vast increase in the amount of work before the district courts but a change in the nature of the work.
  The first result of legal aid will be that, instead of there just being a legally-trained person handling the prosecution, there will be, in all cases where the accused pleads not guilty, a legally trained person acting for the defence. There will be the absurd situation of the prosecution and defence being legally trained, with the only person who is not legally trained being the person asked to decide between those two individuals.
  Mr. Dempsey: That is what happens now.
  Mr. Rifkind: Although it can sometimes happen, it is relatively rare. I refer

  1503
  the hon. Gentleman to the facts given as an example in the debate in the other place, when it was stated that:
  "In one month recently in the Edinburgh burgh court of a total of 288 persons appearing from custody 257 pleaded guilty".[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 1428.]
  In other words, there were only 30 cases in which the accused pleaded not guilty. In the vast majority of those cases he would not have been legally represented.
  Mr. Dempsey: I seldom sit on the bench in my court without somebody being defended by a legal representative.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to accept that point. But the whole reason why legal aid is to be introduced is to enable many people who might otherwise plead guilty, in order to get the case over, to have the benefit of legal advice in deciding whether or not they should plead guilty. If they choose not to plead guilty, that will be because their legal adviser believes that there is a legal reason which entitles them to do so. That means that there will be far more legal arguments never mind factual arguments, in cases heard by the district courts. Many of the matters that magistrates have to decide now are matters of fact. When both sides are legally represented, there will be far more legal argument, whether Labour Members like it or not. Therefore, the person to determine what may be complex legal arguments will be the one person in court without legal training.
  There are strong arguments against the Bill. It has been improved by its passage through the other place. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the changes made there. They do not destroy the principle of lay magistracy, but they ensure that those appointed as lay magistrates will at least be the most suitable people for that position. That is an important compromise between those who hold different views about the principle of lay magistracy.
  I hope that the Government will show flexibility on the matter, because it will be in the interests of justice and of those who appear in the courts to do so.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I welcome the commitment of the
  1504
  Government, as evidenced by the Bill, to retain the lay magistracy. That is very good and democratic, but, all the same, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to respond sympathetically to the case for appointing more stipendiary magistrates. I do not believe that the retention of lay magistrates and the appointment of more stipendiary magistrates is necessarily incompatible. I say to some of my colleagues who have adopted a dogmatic defence of lay magistrates that it is difficult to do so when speaking to a Bill which will increase legal professional expertise and professionalism in district courts.
  This is not just a matter of legal aid being made available to defending counsel. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has already referred to that. It is also the fact that we shall have more professional prosecuting counsel. That is a matter that will come directly under my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has given an undertaking, through our spokesman in another place, that that will be accomplished within the next year. On top of that, we now have written into the Bill—this was done when it was in another place—a provision that clerks of the courts shall be either solicitors or advocates. That is a new addition.
  I have some sympathy for the magistrates who are left as the only laymen among the rising sea of experts in the courts. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider sympathetically the case for appointing more stipendiary magistrates. Their appointment can be reconciled with the basically lay magistracy and may well provide some useful leavening.
  We must give considerable attention to training in the new circumstances. I welcome the provision in the Bill for training for lay magistrates. I want to look in some detail at the kind of training that is provided. I was a little put out by the reference of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) to "legal training". I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) that not all human wisdom is to be found in legal textbooks. I hope that the training given to lay magistrates will go beyond purely legal training and will include some social training,

  1505
  so that lay magistrates will gain some comprehension of social problems.
  Many of the cases that are dealt with day in and day out in the burgh courts are not in themselves evidence of crime, they are evidence of social problems. There are the cases that fall under the heading of drunkenness. Such offences constitute a significant proportion of the cases that go to the Edinburgh Burgh Court and make up a distressing proportion of the total number of cases dealt with in Scotland. In 1973 there were no fewer than 16,000 "drunk and disorderly" in Scotland. That compares with only 99,000 such cases in England and Wales.
  We must remember that many offences connected with drunkenness are brought before the Scottish courts under the heading of breach of the peace. If we couple the offences of breach of the peace with offences of drunkenness we have the alarming total of about 45,000 cases connected with drunkenness being brought before the burgh courts in Scotland. That number must be compared with the figures for England and Wales. It is an alarming comparison. Scotland, with one-tenth of the population of England and Wales, has half the number of offences connected with drunkenness. The bulk of those cases go to the courts which will be district courts under the Bill.
  The figures that I have given are a measure of a real, alarming and grave social problem. I am moved to ask what purpose is to be served by treating a social problem as a crime. We have evidence from researches that of the large number of people who end up in the courts on charges relating to drunkenness, about half of alcoholics. I refer to only one of my constituents, who has now appeared and been convicted before the Edinburgh Burgh Court 317 times on charges of being drunk and incapable. What possible purpose is served by taking such a person to the courts time after time? Would it not be better to try to provide some treatment?
  What possible purpose is served in treating what is basically an illness as if it were a crime? Perhaps we should give the same degree of urgency which we are giving to the Bill to the circular dealing with community facilities for
  1506
  alcoholics, which has now been lying around in various departments in the Scottish Office for 18 months.
  There is the other heading of offences concerned with vagrancy. In Edinburgh we operate under the Edinburgh Corporation Confirmation Order, which provides two definitions which must be met before a person can be convicted of vagrancy. First, the person charged must have no lawful means of support and, second, he must have no fixed place of abode. The problem with this is that time and again the lay magistrates who have been operating in our burgh court have refused to recognise supplementary benefit as a lawful means of support, which suggests an interesting attitude to the Department of Health and Social Security.
  These magistrates have also refused to recognise a lodging-house as a fixed place of abode. I have another constituent who, only the other month, was put away on a charge of vagrancy although he has been living in the same lodging-house for the past 10 years. That, I would have thought, constituted a fixed place of abode. This is a matter of acute concern to me because, as the Minister will be aware, 800 of my constituents live in lodging-houses, mainly because of the serious problem we have in Scotland of homelessness among single adult people.
  Many of these 800 constituents are regularly charged with vagrancy offences. It is interesting that these offences reach a peak which coincides with the onset of the Edinburgh Festival. What is particularly bad is that when these people are fined, because they live in a lodging-house it is said that they have no fixed place of abode and therefore they are given no time to pay. Therefore, in the majority of cases, when a fine is imposed these people are imprisoned—as has happened on most occasions to my constituent, who has appeared 317 times on drunkenness charges.
  I am rather concerned about the Bill's doubling of the fine. The courts are to be given power to fine not up to £50 but up to £100. I would appreciate an assurance that this will not result in a corresponding increase in the time served in lieu of a fine. I know that the maximum term is the same, at 60 days, but the effective maximum is most cases already is 30 days. Some assurance on this point would be helpful.

  1507
  The main point remains that I do not see much point in treating alcoholism by bringing charges alleging drunkenness. I do not see much point in trying to treat the problem of the single homeless adult by bringing vagrancy charges. We should consider the approach of our society to these social problems. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. In the meantime, if we are to continue with this system it is imperative that recognition of the social problems which give rise to these offences be included in the training given to lay magistrates.
  Mr. James Sillars: Will my hon. Friend clear up one point? I agree that lay people should be given training on the social as well as the legal aspects. Does my hon. Friend also suggest that stipendiary magistrates should receive this background training?
  Mr. Cook: Indeed. I entirely accept that. I hope that if we do this training, it will not be confined to the lay magistracy. I can think of many members of the legal profession, not only in the lower courts, who would benefit from such training. We have the evidence of the children's panels, who have a well-developed and successful system of training. Many professional members of the legal bar could benefit from it. I hope that some lessons will be learned from this system when we begin training for the district courts.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) said that in Edinburgh in one month 280 cases were brought to the court, of which 250 pleaded guilty. The interesting point, which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, is that in none of the 250 cases where there was a plea of guilty and a conviction did the lay magistrate call for any kind of background or social report before sentencing. That is an unsatisfactory situation. It is not one which the House ought to tolerate. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by this Bill to change that situation.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Selby: I live in an area in Glasgow which had no justice of the peace for 10 years. People would come to me with papers for signing
  1508
  by a JP. I had to send them elsewhere for one. I made representations about the appointment of a JP. I nominated three people—a church worker, a trade union official and a political agent of some years' standing. Not one of them was selected.
  I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that every area is properly represented. More than one-third of the JPs in Glasgow live outside Glasgow, which is a disgrace. I hope that when the process of selection takes place a person's status in society is not taken as a yardstick of his intelligence. It is not always the bailie with the most years' service who is the best bailie.
  I went, with an individual who had been charged, to a court where the bailie had served for three years. He should have been a good bailie by that time. He had two similar cases to deal with. One was of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). The person concerned had gone to a public toilet at 11 o'clock and found it shut. It was in a dark corner of Govan Road. He went round the back and was arrested by two detectives. The bailie fined him £5 for not going home. In the other case a person deliberately stood on the pavement edge and spent a penny. He was fined £5 for not looking for a dark place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) referred to the question of pawn tickets. Some Members seemed to think it a joke, but people still put things in pawn and they still lose tickets. People still need to get forms filled in, and in areas where there are few JPs it is a difficult matter. It is nearly always working class people who are in difficulty.
  I have never stood in a dock. I have never pleaded a case in a dock. I have never sat on a bench as a bailie. I have never wished to sit in judgment of my fellow men. I have never wanted to be a Solomon. Since we are talking about cases in the lower courts, and petty crime, we need not worry too much about the legal training expected of JPs. What is required is an understanding of life—how one's neighbours live and how one has lived oneself. No one can say that he has not broken the law in one way or another.

  1509
  I hope that when it receives the names from the nominated bodies the executive will strike a fair balance, so that the working class is properly represented.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: We have had an interesting debate in which many hon. Members have covered the broad principles of the Bill. The hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) and Inverness (Mr. Johnston), representing the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Party respectively, have strong reservations about the changes from the October 1973 proposals which are contained in the Bill. We appreciate the necessity for the Bill and recognise the need for its rapid progress through the House because of the Local Government (Scotland) Act which comes into force in the spring.
  The Bill translates the two lay summary courts in Scotland—that is to say, the burgh courts and the JP courts—into district courts. That is a significant change. I share the view of my hon. Friends that an opportunity for reform has been lost. The chance to reform the law comes but seldom. The Secretary of State has not proved his case for continuing a system which is similar to the present one, and has failed to take advantage of a great opportunity. At the very best, so far the case has not been proven.
  I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) in paying warm tribute to the justices of the peace, whether they are ex officio or JPs in their own right, for all they have done and for the part they will play in future. The tasks which the district courts will take on have not been put into perspective. The most recent figures I have are for 1970, when there were 210,000 cases of summary justice in Scotland, of which 116,000 were in the sheriff courts, 85,000 in the burgh courts and 9,000 in the JP courts. So we are talking about just under half the cases of summary jurisdiction in Scotland. That is a significant figure, and it is one reason why so much concern has been expressed that we should get the system right.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) spoke about the social problems, and I agree with what he said about training. This is an opportunity which must not be lost. As he knows,
  1510
  when I was in the Scottish Office I took a particular interest in alcoholism. I agree with him that the facilities and resources in Scotland for dealing with this terrible illness are inadequate. I hope that when the Secretary of State has resources, which I know are not easy to find at present, further assistance will be given in providing the necessary facilities.
  Over the last three years there has been considerable controversy. The Conservative Government had sound reasons for a change to stipendiary magistrates within the context of the sheriff court. As Scotland has a long tradition of professional justice, as indeed of lay justice, this view was supported by an influential body of opinion—and that opinion should not be cast aside as lightly as the Government have sought to cast it aside in this debate.
  Therefore, in his reply the Minister should spell out in a little more detail who has advocated so strongly the return to lay summary justice. We know that The Cities and the Convention of Royal Burghs are in favour of lay justices, but may we be told what is the view of the County Councils' Association? We understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that the Law Society is not in favour of the change. I do not think that the weight of evidence—other than the Secretary of State's personal view—has been sufficient to embrace this major change. I shall look forward to hearing the Minister give more factual details about which bodies supported this case over and above the two local authority organisations which I have mentioned.
  Having accepted the position on the principle of the subject, which has been so clearly expressed by so many of my hon. Friends, I move on to consider the more detailed points in the Bill. A great many will be raised in Committee, but there are a number on which we should like answers tonight, so that when we reach the Committee stage we shall have a basis of fact on which to argue amendments.
  The first point on which I wish to question the Minister relates to the staffing of the district authorities to run these courts. It is well known that legal assistants are in desperately short supply in the authorities. Where are we to obtain, by the middle of May, legal assistants who

  1511
  can be spared from local authority work to undertake a changeover to the new system and to staff the courts? The weight of work will be very much greater, and I believe that these legal assistants will need to be whole-time in the running of these new courts. The courts cannot be staffed by the type of local authority officer who works only on a part-time basis. It will be very difficult for such an officer so to organise his local authority timetable that it embraces work in supervising district courts.
  The Government, so far, have given no idea of the practical difficulties of staffing the courts by the middle of May. All the district authorities are now considering where the courts shall sit. Perhaps we can be told whether accommodation will be available.
  There is also to be borne in mind the question of cost. The new set-up will cost more money than the present one. I hope that we shall hear a little more about the estimated workload of these courts, since this matter has been highlighted by several hon. Members in this debate.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park was wrong to say that district courts would not deal with motoring offences. Perhaps the Minister will clear up that matter. I understand that they can deal with motoring offences; they can endorse licences but cannot disqualify.
  Mr. McElhone: Road traffic offences have always been a sheriff court matter. If the system has been changed, it is certainly not in the Bill.
  Mr. Monro: We shall listen to the Minister's reply with interest, and we hope that he will clear up that matter.
  I hope that we shall be given a little more information about the procurator fiscal. I understand that responsibility in that respect will lie with the district, and that eventually the duties of the procurator fiscal will be transferred to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. I hope that the Minister will tell us when this will happen throughout Scotland. I know that he said that to begin with this would have to be done on the basis that the Lord Advocate's procurator fiscal service could cope partially at present, but certainly not totally. We would like to know when this will happen.
  1512
  I turn now to training. Again, I have grave reservations about the timetable and who is to do the work. I notice that in future the new justices committee, which I welcome, will be responsible for training, but that committee will not be set up until the Bill has been enacted. Training should be going on now, because it will be the linchpin of the success of these courts in future.
  I press the Minister on the timing. As a justice of the peace I had a letter in December. I have not heard from any colleagues who are justices that timetables have been arranged for training. Does the Minister anticipate that the one training officer to be appointed can look after the whole of Scotland? Will the courses be residential? Where will they take place? I recall that in my days as Civil Defence Commissioner I went to Taymouth Castle for civil defence courses lasting two or three days. Is that the kind of thing that is envisaged for the training of justices in future?
  It is no use the Government saying that they have not had time to consider these matters. They have been in office for nearly a year. They should have contemplated doing this last summer rather than now.
  Turning to the appointment of justices of the peace, I declare my interest and position as a JP. I am sure that the hon. Member for Queen's Park has read paragraph 37 of the White Paper on justices of the peace and justices' courts. I am in the same position as the hon. Gentleman. A Member of Parliament should not sit as a justice in his own constituency. I am sure that he does not do that.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a useful contribution to the debate. Whilst we appreciate the good work done by justices, we must not overlook those who want to be involved in this type of work—particularly social work. These justices can put their names forward for consideration for membership of children's panels.
  Our real difference with the Government is over the issue that was raised strongly in another place concerning the nomination of one-third of the members of district councils as justices. I believe that is wrong, and that provision was removed in another place. Lord Hughes

  1513
  made it clear in another place, giving very cavalier consideration to what their Lordships were saying, that this provision would be replaced when the Bill came back to this House.
  I hope that the Minister, in replying, will give us at least a firm statement that the matter will be reconsidered before further amendments are put down in Committee. If he does not, at the risk of giving the Patronage Secretary and Deputy Chief Whip a coronary, we may well be disposed to divide the House, because we think this is a crucial point in the Bill—[Interruption.] My own Whips are away looking for troops.
  I think that this is the way out of the predicament into which the Minister has got himself. Why cannot the normal justices of the peace advisory committees, which are now in force and are chaired by the Lords Lieutenant, be trusted to appoint the 400 or 500 justices throughout Scotland? It is not an enormous task, and those advisory committees know their stuff. I see no reason why that should not happen.
  The point was made that it is possible that justices might not be resident in all areas if they were appointed, because of their position as district councillors. There will be a much better geographical spread and an opportunity for a much fairer selection if that is done by the normal justices of the peace advisory committees.
  There are two criticisms. First, the system will be grossly weighted against the landward areas. Secondly, how will the district authority nominate one-third of its members? Many people have serious doubts that the matter will be decided by a party caucus before a meeting and there will be no careful selection in terms of quality, which we feel is so important with the appointment of justices. That point was well brought out by the hon. Member for Galloway and by the hon. Member for Inverness.
  The Bill indicates that provosts, bailies and police judges will be promoted automatically to be justices in the new courts. Will they be plus or minus the one-third, or will they be included in the one-third? That could make a significant difference in the balance of the appointments.
  I want to press the Minister on another important point, of which the Govern-
  1514
  ment are unaware. They say that the provosts, bailies and police judges from burghs will be appointed ex officio justices of the peace. Why is it that the present chairmen of district councils, who are also ex officio justices of the peace, will not be in a similar position? Is that not grossly unfair to the landward areas? There is not a squeak from the Government Front Bench. I should like to hear why there is such gross discrimination against the rural areas in Scotland, although it is understandable perhaps from the point of view of Government supporters.
  My next point is equally important in relation to the addition to the original Bill proposed in the other place by Lord Selkirk and Lord Balerno. I raise this point in relation to the initiative to appoint a stipendiary magistrate, if required, by the Secretary of State. The position at present is fine. However, if the Government fulfil their intention, as indicated by Lord Hughes in another place, only the district authority can initiate the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. This may be satisfactory, but it seems to me that we would be in a better wall-back position if the Secretary of State, who should retain his supreme authority in Scotland, also had the right to appoint a stipendiary magistrate if he felt that it was in order to do so.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the District Courts (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Monro: This is important, for several reasons. Not only are we allowing to let slip an opportunity which may be required in the future—and we have to bear in mind what others have said—we shall be cutting 250 JP courts into about 55 district courts. The work load will be very heavy in those 55 courts. It could be that the Secretary of State had grave reservations about the working of the lay justices in those courts and would like to see the initiation of stipendiary magistrates. This, in a way, was behind the thoughts of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I have heard that Edinburgh would not take it amiss

  1515
  if it had a stipendiary magistrate. Glasgow's stipendiaries each deal with about 15,000 cases a year, which clearly shows the valuable work that they do in Glasgow. I hope that we shall have a favourable answer from the Government about that.
  I hope, too, that the Minister will deal with the point brought out so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands about the different maximum penalties under a lay magistrate and under a stipendiary. I should like to know why the practice should be continued when it is obviously an anomaly.
  I come, then, to legal aid. I want to be sure that it will work in practice. I do not suggest that any Government supporter will be drunk and disorderly tonight—certainly not the Secretary of State—but were he to appear in court tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, would he be able to get legal aid then and there? At present, in the sheriff court the sheriff could arrange legal aid, but can these lay magistrates arrange legal aid at short notice, and will it be practical to provide the solicitors to defend anyone appearing in court at very short notice? This is important, but it is a practical point because we are naturally in favour of bringing in this legal aid provision. It is a valuable one, but we see considerable difficulties in its way.
  Is the Minister ready to appoint a director of the Scottish courts administration, now that Lord Wilson has been appointed sheriff as from 1st January?
  All in all, we have many reservations about the Bill. We appreciate the urgent need for it to become law. But we feel that it is crucial to have favourable answers to our questions before we announce our future intentions in relation to our opposition to it.
  10.4 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): It is inevitable that this debate has been almost entirely centred on whether we should have lay participation in the new district courts or whether those district courts should be fully professional.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) suggested that some of my hon.
  1516
  Friends might come under the influence of drink, and I turn my mind back to the winding-up speech in last night's debate when my right hon. Friend suggested that in this Burns season a toast to the Lassies would be appropriate. Even in the few moments since the hon. Member for Dumfries resumed his seat I have made up a little parody of some lines from "Tam o' Shanter":
  "When to drink you are inclined
  Or Cutty Sarks run in your mind
  You have no need to be afraid
  Because in the district court you'll get legal aid."
  The debate has highlighted the difference between the two sides of the House. I am sure that no one, in whichever party in opposition, would dispute that the collective experience and, therefore, I suggest, the collective wisdom of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the work we have been discussing has been invaluable, and, of course, this weighed heavily when it came to a decision on whether to have lay participation in these courts.
  I have been asked about the representations made to the Government about lay participation. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked what were the views of the Association of County Councils. I do not know why he picked out that association. Although it was present, with other local authority associations seeking a continuation of lay justices, the ACC did not express a view.
  I was also asked about the staffing of the district courts by the district authorities. We have been told by the local authority associations that the new districts will be able to provide legally qualified clerks of court, either from their full-time staff or from the regional staff, which is another sources of supply which could be tapped should the need arise, or from local solicitors appointed on a part-time basis. The important thing is that the staff would be legally qualified.
  Hon. Members have asked about the range of offences that will be tried or considered in the new district courts, particularly traffic offences. It was originally proposed that these courts should try traffic offences and have the power to endorse a driving licence but not suspend it. That, however, is not included in the Bill. The new district courts will cater for much the same range of offences as the burgh police courts do at present.

  1517
  We regard training as all-important in setting up the new district courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) brought out some very valuable points in this connection, particularly in relation to the question of social background, and including the problems of alcoholism and vagrancy, which are serious. It is the intention to include training on the question of social background, and no doubt alcoholism and vagrancy would be included within that context.
  Clause 14 empowers the Secretary of State to make schemes for the training of justices of the peace, and lays a duty on the justices' committee in each area to implement and administer these training schemes. Training may be considered under two heads—what training it may be possible to give existing justices before the district courts open for business on 16th May and the long-term arrangements when the new scheme is fully operative. For the transition to the new court, one must obviously rely heavily on the experience of existing burgh magistrates and justices of the peace. About 700 experienced magistrates and 1,000 justices with court experience have expressed their willingness to serve in the district courts, and justices without experience have also offered to serve. Many of the justices to be nominated by district councils will no doubt also wish to sit in these courts.
  Even the experienced justices and magistrates should receive some training appropriate to their experience before 16th May. So some training will be given even to the most experienced magistrates before that date. Those with no experience who we consider cannot begin training too soon if they are to contribute to the new courts will be given training as well.
  The Government regard training as so important that a basic scheme has already been drawn up on lines approved by the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, provided over by the Lord Justice Clerk. This scheme will be sent very soon to the chief executives of district councils, with a memorandum of advice on local arrangements for giving effect to it, including such matters as securing the services of sheriffs, lawyers with court experience, university lecturers in law, social workers and others to give lectures to the justices.
  1518
  As my right hon. Friend said, the post of training officers for justices of the peace has been created in the Scottish Office, and it is hoped to appoint a suitably qualified person very soon. We are intent on proceeding as speedily as is consistent with efficiency and good training in order to ensure that the justices who staff these courts will have some training before 16th May; in the longer term the training will become much more extensive.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made heavy weather of the previous Government's White Paper and their change of mind and what brought it about. At times he was struggling to justify their change of attitude about lay participation. He must know that that White Paper, which proposed the retention of lay judges, received generally warm support, apart from the proposals of non-legally qualified clerks and from a section of the legal fraternity.
  When we came to office in March 1974, we received strong representations from the local authorities. In our view, it was reasonable to assume that there was a case for maintaining a lay element and that that case had widespread support. It is important to recognise that that view was expressed by local authority representations from all political shades of opinion and not from one particular shade of opinion, as seems to have been thought by some Opposition Members who have spoken this evening.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On the latter point, I agree. There is nothing political about this or about the opinions expressed. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned those areas in which strong representations were made and on what very important parts of these proposals the representations were made. Surely those were of extremely great importance. Will he also say what was the opinion and advice from the central advisory committee?
  Mr. Ewing: Yes, I shall be coming to the opinion and advice of that committee. The House will also find that opinion and advice very interesting.
  We do not regard the objections voiced by the legal profession as being minor

  1519
  objections. They were considered. But what we are saying as a Government is that we took the broad consensus of opinion, which led us to the view, rightly, that lay participation should continue.
  On the question of advice from the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, that committee discussed the proposals on two occasions. On the first occasion it considered the proposals based on the working party's report, and supported in principle the scheme which was afterwards outlined in the White Paper. On the second occasion the committee considered the matter again in the light of the representations against the White Paper and recommended in favour of lay justices by a narrow majority. Therefore, the advice of that committee, albeit by a small majority, was that we should continue the lay participation.
  Mr. Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, however, that slight majority in favour of lay magistrates was in favour of lay magistrates appointed by the Secretary of State or lay magistrates elected by the local authorities? There is a very important difference.
  Mr. Ewing: There is a very important difference, but the debate tonight has not been about by whom the lay justices should be appointed. The debate has been about whether we should have lay justices at all.
  Mr. Rifkind: No.
  Mr. Ewing: The fact is that the advice that we have, broadly, is that lay participation should continue in the district courts. I feel that I have dealt adequately with that point.
  We are prepared to consider anything that is said or proposed—including the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfries, who asked us to be flexible and mentioned other matters—without giving any promises or making any commitments. It must be put on record that the advice that we have and the broad consensus of opinion is that lay participation should continue in those courts.
  On the question about the quality of justice, raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, it is worth
  1520
  quoting from paragraph 3 of his Government's White Paper, wherein they said:
  "We also believe that a proper system of training will result in a professional and uniform standard of justice among lay justices."
  There can be no doubt that the standard of justice and the uniformity of justice—if that is the correct expression—will be achieved by the system of training which we shall introduce as soon as possible.
  I turn now to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). In his capacity as a former magistrate he brought his wealth of experience to the debate and illustrated the great risk involved in turning over this level of court to a fully professional system. We must appreciate the level of court about which we are talking and are about to legislate.
  The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson)—surprisingly, in my view—agreed that there should be stipendiary magistrates in all these courts and that the courts should be professionally staffed. I got the impression that later on, when the leader of his party was present, he did not agree with the hon. Member. This doctrine comes strangely from a party which considers that in certain respects the people of Scotland are able to legislate for themselves.
  Members of Parliament could to a certain extent be described as amateurs. We preside over great legislative affairs. However, we are not prepared to give ordinary people at this level of justice the right to judge their fellow men. It seems that the policy of the party of the hon. Member for Galloway is that people can have a say in their own affairs as long as they do not want to take decisions such as this. In Committee I shall want to hear how that stance can be justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), in welcoming lay participation, again brought to bear a great wealth of experience. I reassure my hon. Friend that there are no fears whether we shall have a sufficient number of justices to staff these courts. The best information now available to us is that about 1,730 existing justices have offered to serve, of whom about 1,000 have at least some experience in court work. With the addition of about 700 existing burgh magistrates and

  1521
  police judges, this provides a hard core of experience for the new courts. We expect also that there will be a further 400 justices flowing from the appointments for the district courts. In total there will be about 2,500 justices willing to do all the work. This is probably far more than will be required.
  Mr. Dempsey: There will be more work to do.
  Mr. Ewing: There is no evidence to support that contention. The figure of 2,500 compares with the 1,600 calculated to be required in paragraph 30 of the White Paper. I believe that there would be a good response if we were to make a search for new justices, but we consider that we have no difficulties in that respect.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of loss of earnings. The Bill provides, as does the present law, for the payment of an allowance to justices of the peace. There will be provision for compensation for loss of earnings, but it will have to be as at present. Therefore, the maximum will apply and no doubt the level of the maximum will be reviewed from time to time. It obviously depends upon the circumstances of the individual. The present maximum of £6·70 is not liable to tax.
  There is provision in Clause 15(2)(c) whereby the Secretary of State is empowered to deal with justices who do not attend to their duties in the court. On a constituency basis, I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that in the Monklands district, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, we have 24 experienced judges and 16 magistrates who are ready even at this stage to serve the new district courts. In the Motherwell district there are 35 experienced justices and 14 magistrates who are ready to serve in these new courts, so there should be no trouble in staffing them.
  The hon. Member for Inverness was in favour of the professional system, although, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the Royal Commission on local government did not quite take the view expressed by the hon. Member. I got the feeling that it had slipped the hon. Member's memory that the Royal Commission took the same view as the Government, which is that
  1522
  these lay courts could be set up in conjunction with the district authorities.
  On the question of staff shortage in respect of procurators fiscal, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is quite confident that there will be people to take overall prosecutions in two stages. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked about a timetable for the taking over of these prosecutions by the Crown. We expect all the procurators fiscal will be in these courts by May 1976. My right hon. and learned Friend is confident that we can meet this date without any problems.
  I was interested in the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), and I hesitate to say that the Glasgow police court stories are legion. If time allowed I could tell a few myself, but I shall not be tempted to do so at this time of night. However, my hon. Friend brought out a very important point concerning the level of these courts and the type of case to be tried there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) made the same point. It is important to realise that the people finding themselves in these courts will, by and large, be normal, law-abiding citizens who fall foul of the law once in a lifetime. There can be nothing more awe-inspiring than to have to go into a court faced with the paraphernalia of the law, probably for a minor offence. In the past the courts at borough police court level dealt admirably with this type of offence. When the district courts come into being the set-up and the staff will be adequate to take over this type of offence.
  I wish to correct what was obviously a wrong impression by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park. The Bill in no way affects the constitution of the licensing court or the court of appeal. The district courts will not take over licensing functions. The licensing courts and the court of appeal will remain as they are. The Bill does not affect licensing courts or licensing appeal courts.
  Mr. McElhone: We are grateful to my hon. Friend for giving each hon. Member an answer to the points raised. However, the Bill mentions the question of licensing courts. If there are no longer to be magistrates in areas such as Glasgow, who will staff the licensing courts? I am concerned that suitable

  1523
  people should perform this important function.
  Mr. Ewing: That is a different matter, which does not arise on the Bill. My hon. Friend mistakenly refers to magistrates. There will be no such person, as a result of local government reorganisation. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall write to him on the question of staffing and he will be given the information he requires.
  Mr. McElhone: I realise that we shall have no more magistrates. However, there has been great unhappiness about the question of sheriffs dealing with legal aid applications. Who will judge the question of legal aid in the district courts?
  Mr. Ewing: The matter of the licensing court is provided for in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Half justices of the peace and half county councillors will staff the licensing courts and licensing appeal courts.
  The question of legal aid is important. In summary cases in the sheriff courts legal aid is granted by the sheriff, and the Government take the view that it is entirely consistent with this that justices should grant legal aid in district courts. Arrangements of this kind will have the advantage of being quick, decisive and inexpensive, and will be carried out by people with knowledge of local circumstances. We accept that the one matter in which the justices who will staff the courts will not be experienced is legal aid. Therefore, we are anxious to ensure, and will ensure, that they will have training in legal aid matters before 16th May.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which is concerned that the justice who granted legal aid might subsequently hear the case. Would not that be unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Ewing: We shall examine that matter. We have no ground for concern. The same situation applies in the sheriff court.
  In conclusion—
  Mr. Monro: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his detailed reply, but if he is coming to his peroration, may I point out that he has not answered
  1524
  the two points about which we have pressed most strongly—the appointment of the justices to the extent of one-third by the district authorities, and the amendment made in another place on the opportunity for the Secretary of State to appoint stipendiary magistrates? We shall want an answer on those two matters before we make a decision.
  Mr. Ewing: It was on those two points that I was going to conclude. On the question of stipendiary magistrates and the Secretary of State, I ask the House to await our proposals. If they await our proposals with patience I am sure that their patience will be well rewarded. I ask the House to be a little more patient on the stipendiary issue. We shall be making proposals but I cannot say any more at this stage.
  It is the Government's view that the district councils should have the right to appoint a third of their members to staff the district courts. It is a long time ago but I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was prepared to examine any alternative proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Dumfries and his hon. Friends. I also said that I was not prepared to give any unqualified commitment or assurances or anything of that order. At present we consider that the district councils should have the right to appoint a third of their members to staff the district courts.
  The view is prevalent that the local authorities will play a large part in the appointment of the judges. The fact is that the majority of appointments will remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland, as is the position with the justices now. Even if all district councils appoint their full one-third, the total number of ex-officio justices will be only about 400 for the whole country as against about 5,000 justices at present.
  There are no grounds for anyone to say that the local authorities will be playing a major part in staffing the district courts. They will be playing a significant part but not a major part.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister accept that they will be playing a major part in the four cities of Scotland where the bulk of the population is centred?
  Mr. Ewing: That is possibly true. That must be considered, but on balance

  1525
  we consider that it is an acceptable proposition. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is right that even in the four cities the district councils will play a major part in staffing the courts. I would want to consider that point. I am not absolutely sure that that is correct.
  No one underestimates the importance of the question of whether or not lay participation should continue in the district courts. It is our view that it should continue. It is our view that the Bill is a good Bill, and, like my right hon. Friend, I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make provision as respects district courts and justices of the peace in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

  WRITTEN-OFF MOTOR VEHICLES (LOG BOOKS)
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: This is the second occasion on which I have raised, on the Adjournment of the House, the question of the need to protect the purchaser of a car that has been totally written-off by an insurance company and subsequently repaired. I first ventilated the matter two years ago, following a series of Parliamentary Questions. Prior to that Adjournment debate the Minister decided to set up a working party from the Department to consider the problem.
  The working party met on 16th February 1972. Together with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association and other organisations, I met the working party to discuss the issue. At the end of the year, after many months of meetings, the working party reported that it was of the opinion that reconstituted cars—cars that had been wrecked and subsequently repaired—were only a minor factor in road safety. The working party recommended that no action should be taken. Since then we have had a new Government, and I hope that the Minister will look upon this problem more favourably.
  Let me detail the situation again. Three or four years ago, when a car was so badly damaged in an accident that the cost of repairing it exceeded its value it was written-off by the insurance company as a total loss. This information was stamped on the log book. If the car was subsequently repaired an intending purchaser knew that he was buying a car that had been extensively damaged in an accident. He could then make his own arrangements to have the car examined by a competent inspector. This scheme of stamping log books, which was voluntarily entered into by the insurance companies, was abandoned. I have yet to discover the reason why. I suspect
  1528
  that the insurance companies could get a better price for their written-of wrecks if the log books were not stamped. I am only hazarding a guess here. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why this was done.
  Many of these wrecked cars get into the hands of back-street repairers who have no scruples. They do not possess the jigs, tools or expensive machinery needed to realign a badly buckled car, or to assess whether the axles and the steering of a car are out of true. As a consequence, corroded bodywork is sometimes patched up with fibre glass. This looks fine until three or four weeks after the car has been bought, when the fibre glass falls out. In some cases when a dealer has a car with a smashed front end he will cut a front end from a similar model that has rear damage and weld it to the first car. In many cases these cars are sold at inflated prices. They are a danger not only to the driver but to all road users. In my opinion there should be some protection against these practices.
  I must make it clear that many cars that have been written-off are repaired by reputable garages. Rebuilding wrecked cars is not illegal, and vehicles repaired by reputable manufacturers are safe and roadworthy. That is why reputable dealers organised in the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association, the Motor Agents Association and the Institute of Automobile Assessors are backing this campaign to put the back-street dealer out of business.
  Let me give an illustration of the situation by quoting a letter—one among many—which I received from a constituents on this subject:
  "We advertised recently for a 1600E Cortina, as they are in rather short supply, and had a telephone call from a young man who offered to bring his 1600E over for us to look at. This he did. He explained that it had had a slight bump on the bonnet and that he had had it resprayed. He took my husband and son out for a ride, and they thought the car was in quite good condition. After thinking it over for 24 hours, my husband decided to buy the car. The young man said that he had two log books, as one had been lost and turned up after the second one had been issued, and that we could have either. He added that he would prefer the transactions to be in cash. My husband arranged to collect the £900 from the bank, but the two log books worried me, so I telephoned the Taxation Office who told me the car had been in an accident in July

  1529
  1971. I telephoned the seller to say that we wished to have the car inspected by the RAC. He was quite annoyed at the delay Ȧ".
  My constituent said that at the point the seller became very abusive. She continued:
  "Last weekend we bought a car from a reliable garage and while chatting to the mechanic mentioned the other car. The mechanic knew the seller and said that it had been two scrap cars joined togetherȦ".
  That is just one of a number of letters I have received from people who have been defrauded by back-street, so-called garage proprietors who are cannibalising wrecked cars and selling them, often at inflated prices. The cars are a hazard and a danger to road users.
  I am asking the Minister tonight to say why the scheme for the stamping of log books has been abandoned. Has the Minister consulted the insurance companies? Has he agreed with those companies that they should abandon the stamping of log books? If they have done so, what reasons have been advanced for this practice having been discontinued?
  I should like to see an arrangement—this would probably require amendment of the law—to provide that if a car is totally written off the log book is surrendered to the licensing authority and not reissued until the reconstituted vehicle has been examined by a competent Ministry examiner.
  I am asking the Minister to afford protection to the intending purchaser of a car which has been written off as a total wreck and has been reconstituted. I am asking that that intending purchaser should be given the same protection as that given to any other consumer. We all know about the mass of legislation which has been envisaged to give protection to the consumer so that in almost every commodity he buys the consumer is protected against false trade descriptions. Yet the intending purchaser of a second-hand car is given no protection whatever. In ignorance he can buy a car which has been totally wrecked, rebuilt and sold again. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will now try to renegotiate with the insurance companies an agreement whereby they will stamp the log books.
  The Department has been much too complacent about this matter. I first
  1530
  raised it at Question Time four years ago. We are not asking for a revolution; we simply want protection to be given to a prospective purchaser of a secondhand car so that he will at least know that at some time or other the vehicle has been a wreck.
  I cannot understand the Department's adamant attitude—setting up a departmental committee that meets for 10 months to consider the question, and fobbing me off time and time again with parliamentary answers that are meaningless. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will now renegotiate an agreement with the insurers that log books of wrecked cars will be stamped to the effect that the cars have been wrecked, and that, if necessary, he will tell the insurers that if they are not prepared to enter into a voluntary agreement he will take steps to make the system compulsory?
  I hope that after this long and constant battle we shall be able to win a minor victory. We have a different Government, with a different outlook. We have a different Minister. I hope that they will look afresh at the problem, and that at long last the motorist will have some assurance that he will be protected when he buys a second-hand car.
  10.51 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a matter that every hon. Member must surely support—the adequate protection of the purchaser of a seriously damaged car which, if improperly repaired, would constitute a road safety hazard.
  My hon. Friend has been involved in the matter for a long time. I am sorry if the answers he has received from the Department in the past have not been helpful. I hope that many of the answers I have given him have been slightly more helpful than he suggested. I shall try to answer some of the points he raised tonight, and I hope that I can give him some satisfaction, but it is a slightly more complicated question than he may realise.
  My Department is vitally concerned with road safety. It is constantly seeking ways of reducing the tragic toll of road

  1531
  accidents and looking for ways of effectively utilising the resources available to us.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that a written-off car should have its log book withdrawn until satisfactory repairs have been carried out, it has been certified as roadworthy by a competent examiner, and the log book has been endorsed showing that the car was a written-off vehicle. This would ensure proper repair and warn the prospective purchaser of the vehicle's history.
  The endorsement proposal was tried in 1967, when insurance companies entered into a voluntary agreement whereby written-off vehicles were notified to the local motor taxation offices and their log books endorsed. Purchasers were thus forewarned. Experience showed that the arrangement had many faults: the "written-off" principle was not a satisfactory basis for defining a badly damaged vehicle, as other factors also affect the insurance company's decision; the system did not cover cars that were not comprehensively insured, or cars badly damaged but not written off; and properly repaired cars were marked for the rest of their lives by the log book endorsement. The arrangement was ended in February 1973 because it was unfair, and made no discernible contribution to road safety, as there was no evidence from the accident statistics that repaired vehicles were less safe than others of their age and type.
  Despite the lack of evidence that a significant problem exists, I have considered whether badly damaged vehicles should be tested before being returned to the road. There are a number of difficulties here, the first being the size of the problem. A "seriously damaged vehicle" is not a clearly defined term, and hence there are no statistics for the number of vehicles involved. It is estimated that the insurance companies pay compensation for the total loss of some 50,000 vehicles a year, and there are others which would qualify if they were insured. No one knows how many of these vehicles find their way back on to the roads, and there are no guesses at all of how many vehicles require major repairs without reaching this stage. Nevertheless, the chief constables do not regard the faulty repair of damaged
  1532
  vehicles as a significant cause of accidents. For example, the West Yorkshire police had not heard of a single example in a sample of over 9,600 accidents.
  Secondly, there is the nature of the sort of fault which is usually instanced when expressing concern over seriously damaged vehicles. This is either distortion of the chassis or the welding together of the frame from disparate parts. Neither is easily detected and neither would show up on a normal MOT test. If seriously damaged vehicles are to be retested before re-use, logic demands that they should be subjected to a different test, which should inevitably be more thorough and expensive.
  We also have the problem of enforcement. The first difficulty lies in identifying the vehicles. Not all accidents which result in serious damage are reported to the police. Likewise, the insurance companies do not hear of those accidents where vehicles are not insured against damage. Nor do garages carry out all repairs to seriously damaged vehicles. There is, therefore, no easy way of identifying these vehicles.
  The second difficulty lies in ensuring that a vehicle once identified as seriously damaged is not used again until tested. Theoretically, this would be easier, but it would involve resources in keeping records of vehicles notified and following up applications to an extent which would not be justified in the light of the size of the problem.
  My conclusion, therefore, must be that any proposal to test these vehicles should be resisted on the ground that it is not a cost-effective use of resources. However, if anyone can produce evidence of a significant road accident danger from these vehicles, I shall review my policy in the light of that evidence.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: My hon. Friend is approaching this problem entirely from the statistical point of view, which is that these reconstituted vehicles do not cause accidents. The statistical evidence is not available. Apart from that, will he approach the matter from the consumer's point of view? Cars may break down; they may not cause accidents. However, the motorist is being defrauded when he buys a reconstituted car. Therefore, from the consumer's point of view, will my hon. Friend consider ensuring that log books are stamped?
  Mr. Carmichael: I was going to deal with the consumer aspect. I may have given my hon. Friend the wrong impression. I dealt with the statistics to some extent when I quoted the example of the West Yorkshire police, which I have no reason to believe is exceptional. They have not heard of one example of a reconstituted car being involved in any of the 9,600 accidents that they sampled.
  Referring to consumer protection, on 1st January last the House took measures to increase the protection given to purchasers of motor cars by strengthening the law regarding the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. It is now an offence to expose for sale, to put on display in a showroom or offer for sale at auction, a vehicle which contravenes the construction and use regulations relating to brakes, steering, tyres, construction, lights and general safety. However, the prospective buyer is wise if he has the vehicle examined before purchase. I cannot stress that strongly enough.
  I have been interested in motor cars for a long time. The motor car is a peculiar symbol in our society. The number of people who save for a long time and invest a great deal of money in the purchase of motor cars is incredible. A number of salesmen—by no means all—know how to play on the psychological desire of people to own motor cars. It is quite unusual for people buying a car to behave as the writer of that letter to my hon. Friend behaved. That is an estimable way to go about it. But many people, having saved for a long time, when they are spending a lot of money to buy a car, do so in a most haphazard and thoughtless way. I cannot stress too much that if one is spending between £600 and £900 for a car one should also spend £10 or £20 to have it examined by an association or an examiner.
  1534
  Unfortunately, I know—friends of mine go out and do it—that people go out to buy a car saying that they must have it that weekend. It is the fraility of human nature which many car salesmen are masters at exploiting.
  I would say a word about consumer protection in the more general sense of value for money—a subject more properly for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 have greatly strengthened the purchasers' position, and if he is sold a car which is falsely described he may well have good grounds for redress in the civil courts.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend has read of many cases—I know of his interest in this subject—where a car's "clock" has been turned back. That was one method which was used to try to sell a car—pretending that it had done much less mileage than was the case. There have been a number of cases in the courts where car salesmen and companies have got into serious difficulty. There are protections.
  I am not trying to brush my hon. Friend off with the lethargy of the Department. I have looked at this matter with care. I thought it was much easier than I have since found it to be. It is not something we are sleeping on. We are very concerned, and any measures that hon. Members can suggest which will improve or maintain road safety—anything to help in the battle for road safety—will be looked at carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Lorries (Jack-knifing)
  Lorries (Jack-knifing)
  Railways (Capital Investment)
  Railways (Capital Investment)
  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Empty Housing
  Empty Housing
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Staffing
  Local Government Staffing
  South-East England (Structure Plans)
  South-East England (Structure Plans)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Channel Ports (Road Access)
  Channel Ports (Road Access)
  Ports (Nationalisation)
  Ports (Nationalisation)
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Motor Vehicles (Accidents)
  Motor Vehicles (Accidents)
  Transport Expenditure
  Transport Expenditure
  Local Authority Mortgage Interest
  Local Authority Mortgage Interest
  Home Purchase Assistance (Harrow)
  Home Purchase Assistance (Harrow)
  District Auditors (Surcharge Powers)
  District Auditors (Surcharge Powers)
  M55 Motorway Link
  M55 Motorway Link
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Bricks
  Bricks
  Building Societies (Mortgage Repayments)
  Building Societies (Mortgage Repayments)
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  Motorway Lighting
  Motorway Lighting
SCOTLAND
  Freight Charges
  Freight Charges
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Rates
  Rates
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Local Government Debt
  Local Government Debt
  Schools Designation Scheme
  Schools Designation Scheme
  Islands (Land Ownership)
  Islands (Land Ownership)
  Hill Farming
  Hill Farming
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South-West Africa
  South-West Africa
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EMPLOYMENT
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Cotton
  Cotton
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Motor Vehicles and Components
  Motor Vehicles and Components
  Industrial Diseases
  Industrial Diseases
INDUSTRY
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Vehicles
  Vehicles
  Chrysler Corporation
  Chrysler Corporation
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Factory Employment (Young People)
  Factory Employment (Young People)
  Workers' Co-operatives
  Workers' Co-operatives
  Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company
  Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company
  Computers
  Computers
  Milk
  Milk
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farms
  Farms
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
CIVIL SERVICE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Ministerial Correspondence (Costs)
  Ministerial Correspondence (Costs)
DEFENCE
  Engineering Establishments
  Engineering Establishments
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  RAF Brawdy
  RAF Brawdy
  Air-Sea Rescue
  Air-Sea Rescue
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants (Parental Means Test)
  Student Grants (Parental Means Test)
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Teachers of Mentally Handicapped
  Teachers of Mentally Handicapped
ENERGY
  Oil Companies (Quarterly Returns)
  Oil Companies (Quarterly Returns)
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Textiles (Departmental Purchases)
  Double Summer Time
  Double Summer Time
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Burmah Oil (BP Shares)
  Burmah Oil (BP Shares)
  SGHWR Power Stations
  SGHWR Power Stations
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pakistani Immigrants
  Pakistani Immigrants
  Police (Rifles)
  Police (Rifles)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Development Gains Tax
  Development Gains Tax
  Betting (Expenditure)
  Betting (Expenditure)
  Chilean Debt
  Chilean Debt
  "Labour Market"
  "Labour Market"
  Companies (Foreign Shareholdings)
  Companies (Foreign Shareholdings)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  District Valuer's Office (Knowsley)
  District Valuer's Office (Knowsley)
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  Post Office (Investment)
  Post Office (Investment)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Disaster Funds
  Disaster Funds
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Postal and Telephone Charges
  Postal and Telephone Charges
TRADE
  Newspapers (Shareholdings)
  Newspapers (Shareholdings)
  Oil-Producing Countries
  Oil-Producing Countries
  EEC Countries
  EEC Countries
WALES
  Education (Gwent)
  Education (Gwent)
  Roads
  Roads
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  EEC Herd Conversion Scheme
  EEC Herd Conversion Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  National Health Service Consultants
  National Health Service Consultants
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Wives' Supplementary Benefit
  Wives' Supplementary Benefit
  Wage Stop Rules
  Wage Stop Rules
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Population Trend (Bedfordshire)
  Population Trend (Bedfordshire)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Overseas Doctors
  Overseas Doctors
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
  Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Chiropody (Dartford)
  Chiropody (Dartford)
  Survey Research (Expenditure)
  Survey Research (Expenditure)
  Supplementary Benefit Appeals Tribunal
  Supplementary Benefit Appeals Tribunal
  Children's Employment
  Children's Employment
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Benefits (Hospital Patients)
  Benefits (Hospital Patients)
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Hospital Beds (Bournemouth)
  Hospital Beds (Bournemouth)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Pensioners (Western Isles)
  Pensioners (Western Isles)
  Needy Persons (Fuel)
  Needy Persons (Fuel)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
ENVIRONMENT
  Furnished Lettings
  Furnished Lettings
  Parish Councils
  Parish Councils
  Oil Refineries and Power Stations (Pollution)
  Oil Refineries and Power Stations (Pollution)
  Building (Local Authorities' Powers)
  Building (Local Authorities' Powers)
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Land Acquisition
  Land Acquisition
  Historic Buildings Council
  Historic Buildings Council
  House Building (London)
  House Building (London)
  Manchester (Railways)
  Manchester (Railways)
  Bus Shelters
  Bus Shelters
  Rented Accommodation (Municipalisation)
  Rented Accommodation (Municipalisation)
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Planning (Guidelines)
  Planning (Guidelines)
  Broadway Inner Relief Road
  Broadway Inner Relief Road
  Southampton (Housing)
  Southampton (Housing)
  Local Authority Mortgage Interest
  Local Authority Mortgage Interest
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Rates (Shops)
  Rates (Shops)
  Local Authority Transport Undertakings
  Local Authority Transport Undertakings
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Transport Grants
  Transport Grants
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Motor Vehicles (Bumpers)
  Motor Vehicles (Bumpers)
  Council Housing (Lodgers)
  Council Housing (Lodgers)
  Empty Housing
  Empty Housing
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Hull (Roads)
  Hull (Roads)
  Private Housing (Local Authority Purchases)
  Private Housing (Local Authority Purchases)
  Fuel Conservation (Government Cars)
  Fuel Conservation (Government Cars)
  Housing (Starts)
  Housing (Starts)
  Housing Costs and Rents
  Housing Costs and Rents
  Immigrants (Housing)
  Immigrants (Housing)
  Houses (New Occupation)
  Houses (New Occupation)
  Central Heating (Rating)
  Central Heating (Rating)
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Waterways
  Waterways
  Planning Appeal, Waltham Forest
  Planning Appeal, Waltham Forest
  Local Government (Labour Costs)
  Local Government (Labour Costs)
  Electric Wiring (Old Houses)
  Electric Wiring (Old Houses)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Wool-sack.

LORD WALLACE OF COSLANY
George Douglas Wallace, Esquire, having been created Baron Wallace of Coslany, of Coslany in the City of Norwich, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Popplewell and the Lord Burntwood.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
Stuart Yarworth, Lord Archbishop of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Bolton—Took the Oath.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

WASTE PAPER
2.32 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 pressure is being exercised on local authorities to ensure that waste paper is regularly collected and to what extent if any such collections have caused any reduction in paper imports.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, because there is a temporary glut of waste paper, the Government cannot for the time being encourage
860
local authorities. The urgent need is to secure a stable market for paper that can be collected, and the Government's Advisory Group on Waste Paper Recycling are urgently considering ways of doing this. They are also considering how to increase the proportion of waste paper that can be used in paper manufacture. The waste paper salvaged by local authorities would, if imported as waste, cost about £10 million a year. An imported equivalent amount of wood pulp would cost approximately £30 million.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, following that Answer, may I ask my noble friend whether we are to understand that we continue to import vast quantities of paper at great cost when we have a vast amount of the material on our own doorstep? Is that the situation?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, that is not the situation. The situation is that practically all the paper that is imported is paper of a higher quality; it cannot be made out of waste paper and therefore has to be imported.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, surely it is an astonishing situation that, because of some technical difficulty, we are allowing this vast amount of material to remain unused. Am I to understand that some of the local authorities are recalcitrant in this matter and are reluctant to do anything in the way of collection? Is that the case? If that is the position, will my noble friend tell her right honourable friend the Minister (if he happens to be a right honourable Minister) that provided the names of these local authorities are conveyed to me I will publish them and expose them?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, regarding my noble friend's last point, this is not the fault of the local authorities at all, although there may be odd local authorities which are remiss in this matter. As I said in my Answer, due to a temporary glut, a great deal of paper that has been collected cannot for the moment be used. But both Government and industry are confident that there will be an upsurge in demand later this year and the paper will be needed. I can only repeat what I said in answer to a former supplementary question: the paper which is imported

861
is paper of a higher quality. In addition, research both by the Government and by industry is taking place to find ways of using waste paper for better quality paper and also for newsprint.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, in support of the noble Baroness's statement that there is a glut of waste paper, may I say that towards the end of November last I received a letter from the merchants who collect our local waste, to the effect that the demand from paper and board mills had decreased. Four weeks later, I received another letter advising us that the situation had deteriorated further and that we should stop our collection. I think that that supports the noble Baroness's statement.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, that is quite right, my Lords. It was during 1974 that the situation deteriorated, and this was due to a world recession and to a decrease in demand in Europe for waste paper. But now, as I have said, we are hopeful that demand will be on the increase and that people will then be encouraged to start collecting again.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend please request her Secretary of State to consider the type of application for a rent rebate that I have in my hand? It contains two foolscap sheets of closely-typed questions, simply because somebody is asking for a rent rebate. Does this indicate a total lack of safeguarding our resources of paper? Will my noble friend have a word with her right honourable friend about reaching agreement with the local authorities to reduce considerably the type of document which I have produced in this House?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are aware of what my noble friend said. Every attempt is made to try to reduce the consumption of paper in departments. The piece of paper my noble friend is referring to may be one that many people would in any event, like to see recycled. But I will take the point up.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that there is some difficulty for householders in towns and cities to separate waste paper, bottles and tins, with a view to meeting the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? If
862
the noble Baroness does not agree, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have any suggestion as to how householders could be assisted in meeting the noble Lord's point?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are very aware of this problem, and this is a difficulty at a time when there is a glut and many householders are trying to do their social duty in this connection. This is one of the points being considered urgently by the new Waste Management Advisory Council that has been set up; and I hope (although this is outside the scope of the Question) that eventually something will be done.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, whatever the difficulties of local authorities, private agencies on behalf of charities are still collecting waste paper and giving Green Shield stamps in return?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that voluntary organisations are collecting paper. Some of them have managed to make contracts with merchants or mills, but others have not and are left with the waste paper. I would be the last one to suppress any voluntary spirit, but I think it would be better for the voluntary organisations to understand that there is a temporary glut and that, perhaps, they should hold their horses and temper the amount of collection until the situation improves.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a matter in which I have taken a great interest for fifty or sixty years, and I have addressed your Lordships on this question on five or six occasions? Is she further aware that the essence of the problem has not yet been mentioned? Is she aware that the essence of the problem is that the paper mills are now holding huge stocks of material which they are not yet able to use, but which constitute a heavy drag upon their capital? Is my noble friend further aware that they are agitating for Government assistance to tide them over until this surplus stock can be put through the pulp mills? Is the noble Baroness therefore able to tell us whether the Government are giving consideration to this question which is the sole source of the present problem?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very well aware of my noble friend's interest in this matter. I am also aware of the discussions which are taking place between the Government and industry, although I think it is overplaying it a little to call it "agitating". Discussions are taking place on both sides. Industry realises the Government's financial problem so far as this matter is concerned. It is understood. The matter is well in hand and the Government's Advisory Group on Waste Paper is getting together to work on these very problems.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I inform the noble Baroness that there is nothing new in this answer from a Minister? My memory goes back 25 years and I have heard this said over and over again. Is it a question of a lack of capacity for handling waste paper, or is it a question of a lack of demand for the processed product? There is a demand for the collection of waste paper, but when people have collected it they are told that it is not wanted.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with respect, this is the first time that I have had to give this answer. Looking at the other times, I do not believe that the same answer has been given before, because the circumstances and reasons have been different. The answer is that there is a glut of paper, and at the moment there is a lack of demand for it. The purpose of the research which is now being done is to increase the capacity of the mills in order to extend the variety of paper which can be made out of waste paper.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to advise me about what I am now to do with the vast amount of paper that I receive every morning? Am I to put it in the dustbin, or am I still to put it aside for collection?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should advise my noble friend to get in touch with his local authority in order to receive exact, practical local advice on the spot.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Baroness understand that there is tremendous good will all over the nation to try to reduce our import bill. Very large numbers of charitable organisations, as well as local authorities, have been conscientiously collecting waste paper. I had a recent case where the Boy Scouts had to pay somebody to have the waste paper taken away. It seems to be a crazy situation where our imports are so grossly out of balance. Will the Government now give some real sense of priority and urgency to settling this very difficult problem?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Government are giving priority to it. That is what I hoped to convey—although, perhaps, I was not successful—throughout all the answers which I have given to the very interesting questions which have been raised.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she has done remarkably well in facing up to the many questions which have been asked on this subject? May we take it that the anti-litter campaign has been a failure, even though we have had tremendous advertising in regard to that campaign, and that the anti-litter Act which was passed by both Houses of Parliament has not been successful according to the terms out-lined here today?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, since my noble friend was so kind in the first part of his supplementary question, I hate to have to tell him that the latter part of it is another matter and that I do not propose to answer it.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, may I politely suggest that we move to another Question? In view of the fact that we had one Question yesterday which lasted 12 minutes and that this Question has lasted 11 minutes, perhaps noble Lords might look at the length of the Questions which are put down for Answer to see whether they could not be shortened.

ROMANIA: BALANCE OF TRADE
2.45 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Romania and what plans they have in mind to increase exports during the current year, particularly in the field of chemicals and mechanical goods.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the total visible trade between the United Kingdom and Romania in 1974 was £67·8 million, and the crude balance was £767,000 in Romania's favour. During the course of the recent United Kingdom/Romania Joint Governmental Commission, the Romanian delegation made known some of their likely import requirements for 1975 and the period 1976 to 1980, including some in the areas mentioned in the noble Lord's Question, which might be met by exports from the United Kingdom. The Department of Trade will vigorously pursue the opportunities presented.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer to that Question. Is the noble Lord aware that in Romania there are considerable schemes in hand for irrigation and for construction? Can the noble Lord say whether British construction companies, and those companies which are making irrigation plant and so on, will have every opportunity to export goods to this country, in view of the fact that imports from Romania have ostensibly increased over the past months?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the British construction industry, as I know from personal experience, has made a very substantial contribution to the improvement of facilities for irrigation in Romania. I am certain that the work which has been done in the past will bear fruit in future orders.

ASBESTOSIS
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many deaths attributable to asbestosis have been reported to them during the past five years, and what current steps are being taken to eradicate this dreadful disease.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, until last year figures of claims for industrial injuries death benefit for asbestosis were not separately collected, but it is estimated that about 80 deaths a year are accepted as due to or materially accelerated by asbestosis. In about 30 cases a year asbestosis is registered as the primary cause of death. New and more comprehensive regulations were introduced in 1970. These apply to all factory and construction sites where people might be exposed to asbestos dust. These require factory occupiers and contractors to take stringent precautions to safeguard their workpeople. The Employment Medical Advisory Service of the Health and Safety Executive is undertaking a long-term survey to monitor the health of asbestos workers. Details of the survey were given in the reply of my noble friend Lord Hughes to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hale, on 26th November 1974.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer? Will he agree that it constitutes a very disturbing situation, and may I ask him whether he saw, or has had his attention drawn to, the recent television programme on this subject which showed some very harrowing and dreadful scenes? May I also ask the noble Lord whether the Factory Inspectorate are doing sufficient to ensure safety precautions? May I ask also whether the compulsory wearing of masks in the more dangerous processes is being followed sufficiently? Finally, may I ask whether the Medical Research Council and the medical profession in general are making sufficient studies of one of the most terrible diseases of our time?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am aware of the television programme to

867
which the noble Lord referred. I under-stand that the incidents to which reference was made took place before we had the new regulations, and before we had adequate instruments for measuring dust. I can tell the noble Lord that I am very satisfied with the standards as they are at the moment. May I first direct his attention to an article in The Times on 20th January 1975 by the Editor of the Times Business News, who commented most favourably upon the standards in this country. Furthermore, he com-mended them to the ILO for enforcement by governments throughout the world.
Secondly, may I say that we are following up the work that has been done in recent years with the same sense of urgency as we have had over the last few years. At the present time, the Medical Research Council is reviewing the information on which our present standards have been established. This is in addition to the survey and the monitoring of workers' health which has been undertaken by the Employment Medical Advisory Service, and that service will be publishing interim reports from time to time. I believe that we are doing all we can, and we are observing a very high standard.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that during the period in which I had the honour to serve in the Ministry of Social Security when we raised this issue of asbestos, the trade union movement and other industrial organisations were vigilant about this growing menace of asbestosis, and they particularly asked that there should be an extension of and greater recruitment to the Factory Inspectorate. Has that inspectorate been increased and how do we recruit to it?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having asked that question, because I should like to say a word on enforcement. There are 1,200 factories that are affected by the regulations, but in some cases only one or two workers work in an area where there is asbestos dust. The inspectors visit these factories at least once a year, and where there is any difficulty they make repeated visits at short intervals. The inspectors have instruments
868
which enable them to take accurate measurements of dust on all their visits. They have instructions that where there is any significant breach of regulations, they should not hesitate to prosecute and since the new regulations have been in force there have been 42 cases success-fully brought to court. There has been one case where production has been prohibited, and in a second case a prohibition order has been served. In addition, the Industrial Hygiene Unit carries out a number of extensive programme visits to take more detailed measurements, and to give specialised advice. Here, again, I believe that the enforcement matches the high standards which we observe.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who leads this House, whether, while this is an extremely important and interesting matter, his observations about the shortness of questions apply equally to the brevity of answers?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in all honesty I believe so.
Lord HALE: My Lords, while this excellent consideration is going on in regard to this extremely important question, can the noble Lord say whether the Government propose, having very properly made more ample special provision for sufferers from coalminers' pneumoconiosis, to make similar additional provision for sufferers from asbestosis and byssinosis?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I believe that that is another question, and if it were on the Order Paper I am sure it would be answered.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's comment that inspectors make visits at least once a year, can he give any indication as to whether there is any means of continuing the monitoring of dust in the factories?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is the normal practice of the inspector to set up a system in the factory whereby there is continuous monitoring by the management.

CYPRUS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Cyprus.

LITERACY
2.56 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING Lord MAYBRAY-KING rose to call attention to the importance of literary; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I say at the outset that I am grateful to my fellow Cross-Benchers for allocating one of their very rare days to a debate on the subject of literacy. I am delighted that there is to be such a distinguished group of participants in the debate; that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, the Provost of Queen's College, Oxford; and that among the maiden speakers will be an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who has given a lifetime of service to education. There will also be another old friend of mine, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who illuminates every debate in which he takes part.
I think it is significant that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in a notable sermon at his installation gave as the first two needs of man, food and literacy. The United States Commissioner for Education, James Allen, recently said when launching a literacy campaign:
"Imagine if you can, what your life would be like if you could not read, or if your reading skill were so meagre as to limit you to the simplest of writings and if for you the door to the whole world of knowledge and inspiration through the printed word had never opened."
My Lords, since 1970, in a dynamic campaign, Brazil has taught basic reading skills to 6 million illiterate adults. Four years ago one-third of all Brazilians were illiterate. They reduced the number to one-quarter, and they are hoping that by 1980 the number of illiterates in Brazil will be reduced to one-tenth of the population. As for Iran, the Shahanshah made one of the key aims of his white revolution
870
the battle against what he called the "scourge of illiteracy" and to do so, in his own words,
"in order that illiterates who did not know how to defend themselves would understand and become aware of their rights."
So he created a Literacy Corps; an army of young men and women who go up and down the villages of Iran teaching illiterate adults to read. I have had the privilege, as have some of my noble friends here, of seeing that wonderful work going on. It is against a background where newly emerging nations such as the two I have mentioned are placing education and literacy in the forefront of their fight to improve the quality of life that we might look at our own progress in this field.
We had hoped that before this debate we might all have been able to read the Bullock Report. Unfortunately printing difficulties have made that impossible, but I should like to begin by congratulating the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, on setting up the Bullock Committee to investigate the whole question of reading. I believe that her initiative, and the Report itself (when we get it), will make a profound and historic impact on the nation's thinking and actions in the field of literacy.
My Lords, what is the goal? We want every child to leave school not only able to read, to recognise words, but also to read with ease, to read with hunger for more, to read with pleasure, to read for information and knowledge, to come into contact with the masters of thought and beauty whose works have come down to us through the ages, and to share with us our precious cultural heritage. I do not believe that we have done enough in our battle to teach reading. As one who was engaged in education for about 30 years, I know just how remarkable are the advances which we have made in almost every aspect of education, especially since we began to provide secondary education for all our children, instead of for only a quarter of them.
In range and scope, in improved accommodation, apparatus and in other facilities—almost above all, in the introduction of a three-year training course for all teachers—we have done wonders. Some of these wonders are reflected in the ever increasing number of "O" and "A" Levels gained by our children, and the

871
ever-increasing number of children who go on from secondary to further education in so many spheres. Anyone who thinks educational standards are declining might himself face the task of tackling one "A" Level in whatever subject he thinks he knows most about. I think he will find the examination paper something of a shock.
My Lords, I read conflicting reports on children's reading ability. I hope that Bullock will give us a scientific assessment of the problem we are talking about this afternoon. I was cheered to read in the Daily Telegraph of 17th January a letter from a secondary school head-master. He wrote:
"A few years ago we did receive those unable to read, but all who joined us in September 1974 were able to do so, and the need for remedial teaching in our school has been removed. This does speak volumes of praise for the middle schools.… I would add also for the infants schools"—
where the key work is done. A letter like this may suggest that the tide is turning.
On the other hand, in the debate on 27th January in the other place, the figure was given of an increase of 7 per cent. per annum in the number of children leaving school unable to read and write. Dr. Morris, the expert in the teaching of reading, told an education conference in January that 30 per cent. of the pupils entering secondary schools needed special reading instruction. I am certain those two figures are far too high, but I am also certain that, while British education is now perhaps the finest in the world for bright pupils and for average pupils, we are still failing to cope with the under-average child and with the underprivileged. Especially is this true of reading and writing. I refer again to Dr. Morris, who said:
"Pupils who have not mastered the basic mechanics of reading by the age of eight have little chance of becoming competent readers. Half of them will have serious reading difficulties to the end of their schooldays and beyond. Unless high priority is again given to the teaching of reading in all classes, there is a danger of the educational system collapsing."
Those are very strong words indeed.
My Lords, I am one who believes that all that needs to be said on this subject was said by the famous Hadow Committee in its Report on Primary Education way back in 1931. It was then forgotten.
872
In 1950, the Ministry of Education published a pamphlet called Reading Ability, but it is out of print, a fact which itself is a sign of the way we are neglecting the importance of the teaching of reading. In 1950, this pamphlet emphasised how important was the home in this problem. If possible, that is even more true today. The conversation a child hears in the family, the facilities he has for reading, the encouragement he receives to read from the fact that there are books and newspapers in the home, parental interest in his reading as in every other part of his education; adequate sleep, adequate nourishment—all these are vital factors in a child's progress towards literarcy. Yet, just two weeks ago, I read that, at the present moment, some 900,000 children under school age without nursery school provision are being cared for by child-minders, many of them without training of any kind whatever.
My Lords, I believe that the battle of battles is to win the parents. That is why I welcome the decision of the Government to earmark some £1 million to combat adult illiteracy. If we can win the parents, we can win some of the children that I am worried about. There will always be groups of children who will find reading difficult. Only recently we have learned to recognise the dyslectic child, the child suffering from word-blindness, the child who presents very difficult problems, about whom my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton will, I hope, be speaking later in this debate. There are the mirror-sighted children, there are the mentally handicapped children, the psychologically disturbed children, all of whom find reading very difficult indeed. I understand that my noble friend Lady Kinloss will be giving us some rather frightening examples in the speech she proposes to make.
My Lords, the expert, Dr. Morris, at her conference, attacked those who think learning to read is a natural process. She is right. It is one of the most sophisticated of all man's achievements, especially in the English language. English is the richest language in the world. This is partly due to its history, but is partly due, also, to its habit of pilfering from the vocabularies of every other language in the world. It has the largest vocabulary, it has a simple, noiseless grammar. It could,

873
therefore, be the easiest language to learn, and might even become—as I think it could very well—the world language of the future. But the very history which simplifies the grammar of English, the fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Norman, gave us a mixed orthography as Normans tried to write Anglo-Saxon sounds, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the hardest words from this point of view are the very ordinary, simple words, the very words which a child learns in the infants school when he or she learns to read; words like "once", "one", "two", "eight", simple words with fantastic spelling.
All my life I have paid tribute to the infant teachers for the extraordinary way in which they combat this very difficult orthography of ours in the infants schools of Britain. It is a simple fact that if every sound meant one symbol and every symbol meant one sound, as is true of most languages, and as was the original purpose of language and writing, then the teaching of reading would become very simple indeed. It was with this in mind that a friend of mine, Sir James Pitman, the grandson of the inventor of Pitman's shorthand, invented a new teaching alphabet. It is called the Initial Teaching Alphabet. In it each letter stands for one sound and one sound only. But it is scientifically devised so that wherever possible the original symbols remain and those which have had to be invented are so near other symbols that a transition from the Initial Teaching Alphabet to the ordinary alphabet as the child progresses is quite easy. Indeed, in the words of my wife, who was herself an infant school headmistress and who taught through this alphabet, transition becomes almost automatic.
For the Initial Teaching Alphabet is a teaching instrument, an aid to the child embarking on the important task of learning to read. It can be taught by any of the traditional methods that teachers use. It is an instrument, not a method of teaching. It makes learning easier—though not easy, because no learning is easy—and it helps above all, in my opinion, the underprivileged, the under-average child. For me that is its special importance. It helps the child who faces the complicated hurdles of the English orthography, who finds it so difficult and breaks down, who finds it so difficult that even though he or she
874
learns it they avoid reading whenever they have a chance, as did the illiterate Bentley hanged for the murder he did not commit and ashamed to let the world know that he could not read.
I know that the ITA Foundation, of which I am the Honorary President, has given evidence to the Bullock Committee, and I hope we are going to find that the Committee has been impressed, and that the Ministry will give sympathetic encouragement to the very successful work that is being done in over 1,000 primary schools at the present moment, teaching by means of that particular instrument. I believe it can be important in the fight against illiteracy.
But, my Lords, this is only part of the problem. We hear nowadays the cry of, "Back to the three Rs". I am old enough to have had experience of being taught for part of my life under the soulless, repetitive mechanical instruction that went by the name of the three Rs. It was right that a revolt should have taken place against some aspects of elementary education, the cane included. In every way the classroom today is an improvement on the old one. The greatest educator of all, the Czech Comenius, writing 300 years ago, wanted all schools to be "gardens of delight". That has happened in British schools. But I believe that the revolt has gone too far; that it is possible to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And the great Comenius himself believed that discipline and formal instruction was necessary.
While it is well to remember that the generations of average citizens whom we know, the older citizens produced by old elementary education, were no mean citizens of Britain, it is also worth saying that not only was teaching under the three Rs routine drudgery; it also failed to teach the very children I am talking about to read. One of the myths that we have about the three Rs is that in the golden age, when under the old mechanical system we taught the three Rs, everybody could read. This was far from true. Having said that, I think we have to get back to the formal teaching that we associate with the three Rs, without many of its unhappy associations.
My lords, I have mentioned some obstacles. There is a third one. Our training colleges, the colleges of education, do excellent work but they fail, in my opinion, adequately to teach the teaching of reading. As was said in the other place, in a debate on 27th January, by the shadow Minister, an old friend of mine with most of whose speech I disagreed:
"We want in particular new methods of teaching reading and of teaching discipline in the colleges of education, so that teachers will be adequately equipped to go into the schools."—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/75; col. 51.]
My Lords, learning to read is not easy. We speak rightly of the discipline of studies. All learning is difficult, even if improved techniques can make the approach a little easier. But if reading is difficult, the teaching of reading is much more difficult, especially in an age where the TV is a competitor for the child's interest, in an age when adults are reading picture books without any words. I believe that the colleges of education, and indeed some of our schools, are attempting too much. In the words of the James Report, the work of an old pupil of mine, on the colleges of education:
"In such a hubbub of competing priorities, it may not be surprising, although it is certainly alarming, that such matters as the teaching of reading should sometimes appear to be neglected."
In an article in the Daily Telegraph the educational correspondent, a man called Mr. Izbicki, wrote:
"With only a handful of exceptions, teachers (who wrote to me) agreed that standards in the three Rs had declined, that colleges of education were failing to give student teachers adequate training in how to put these subjects across."
He went on to say that some of his teacher correspondents complained—I find it hard to believe—about the attitude of some of Her Majesty's inspectors. He said that one inspector had told the head teacher that he did not care if more than half the infants went from infant school to junior school unable to read. When the headmaster challenged him to repeat this he added, "provided they've had a meaningful experience in the infant school". My Lords, this reminds me of American gobbledygook in education. I believe that the colleges must devote more time, more skill and more research to the teaching of teaching to read.
In the debate in the other place some days ago, it was suggested that the Government should set up national standards for reading and writing. I am not sure how this could be implemented. In the last century we tried payment by results, one of the most lamentable reforms that ever took place in the history of the growth of British education. But having said that, in one way or another the whole nation must take this problem seriously and set about improving the standards of reading of our children.
My Lords, I have left myself no time to talk about real literacy. It was my experience as a headmaster years ago to try to teach illiterate boys to read in my own study, to teach one boy to read only to find that when he went home with the little books I had asked him to take home his father would not let him look at them. But it was also my joy, as a teacher of English, to teach all boys to read—boys of all ages and abilities—to teach the sixth form to read with judgment, with discrimination, with appreciation in the quest for true literacy. Having said that, my Lords, it is the first step that counts. By the end of the years in infant school, the child ought to be able to read comfortably, always excepting some of the very difficult groups I have mentioned.
We need more specialist teachers in the primary field, small enough remedial classes, early diagnosis of physical, of mental or psychological handicaps, or of speech defects. As I said earlier, I hope that the Bullock Report will usher in a dynamic attack on illiteracy and, if the steps which it recommends will cost money, I believe it is money which Britain ought to be happy to pay. I hope that my speech will not have been regarded as a narrow one. When I concentrate on reading and writing, these are the gates to the whole of the width and breadth of human knowledge. I know that for the least able child learning to read means hard work. It means hard work for the teachers in the colleges of education; it means hard work on the part of education authorities. Most important of all, it means hard work on the part of the most precious figure, apart from the child in the whole educational picture—the classroom teacher in the infant school. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord BLAKE: My Lords, I rise to make a very short and, in many ways, a purely subjective speech. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and other speakers, will forgive me if I say that owing to a genuinely inescapable engagement it is unlikely that I can be here at the end of the debate. I apologise to the House for this dereliction of duty, and I much regret that I may not be present to hear what is said by all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak this afternoon.
I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for drawing our attention to this extremely important subject. It is not a subject on which I can pretend to be an expert. My contribution to this debate cannot be more than a personal impression from the point of view of the universities. I have had none of the experience which some noble Lords have had in primary and secondary education. I can only speak about the form of education which is nowadays called tertiary—an expression which always reminds me faintly of a geological epoch rather than universities and polytechnics. I was in fairly regular receipt of written work from 1946, when I first became a don at Christ Church, until about six years ago when I moved to Queen's College, where I do not have the same contact with immediate teaching.
For what it is worth, my impression over the 20-odd years following the end of the war is that standards of spelling, grammar, punctuation, not to mention English style and simple intelligibility, were on the decline. I emphasise that this is a personal impression but I am not alone, I think, in believing this. To some extent it has been endorsed in Oxford by examiners' reports in Final Honour Schools. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, will probably confirm that this is so. He has had just as much, if not more, experience than I have. I have seen a good many adverse comments on the general standard of literacy as far as writing is concerned, ranging from indignation and irritation to despairing acceptance of a falling-off which seems almost irreversible. I admit, of course, that there are plenty of exceptions. There are many boys and girls of university age who can write clearly, lucidly, grammatically and
878
correctly. My point is that there are relatively—or this is my impression—fewer than there were, and that one now positively notices decent English in examination papers which one corrects, whereas a generation ago one tended to take it for granted.
To take another example, twice in the last few years I and my co-examiner for a Doctor of Philosophy thesis have felt obliged to refer back to the candidate a thesis on an historical subject, not on grounds of inadequate scholarship or getting the facts or the perspective wrong— the sort of grounds on which in the past one would have had occasion to do this— but because in both cases large slices of the thesis were written in a manner so as to produce, in the literal use of the word, non-sense. It was ungrammatical, and if you had any regard to the rules of construction and grammar it did not mean anything at all. The depressing thing was that on pointing this out to the candidate it did not appear to impinge in either case. They were men in both cases. They did not even appear aware of the problem to which one was drawing their attention. I found this rather depressing. One must remember that by the time somebody submits a thesis he has had at least six years of tertiary education behind him. In fact, if we go on with the geological analogy, he would almost have reached the quaternary epoch. I was not conscious of this kind of problem 20 years ago.
My Lords, I am not competent to determine the reasons for this decline, but I suspect that it has at least something to do with the falling off in standards of literacy at school. The decline has nothing to do with the arguments that we have about reorganisation—comprehensive or grammar schools—or anything like that ; it began long before comprehensive education ever came into the picture. I wonder whether it has some connection with the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, drew our attention; the allegedly more painless methods of teaching which have come in. It would not surprise me if this were the case. Certainly some of those who actually teach are becoming increasingly sceptical about the validity of some of these techniques.
Perhaps I could finish with a quotation from a letter by the senior history master

879
of a comprehensive school in Brecon which appears in the current number of The Spectator. Commenting on a remark in an editorial in that same paper to the effect that Dr. Rhodes Boyson and Mr. Stevas need expect little but "approbrium from most of the teaching profession" for their stand against "progressive" methods, the senior history master wrote:
"I have taught for the last nine years in a comprehensive school and, before that, for nineteen years in grammar schools, and in all that time I have only met two or three practising teachers who approve of the new 'progressive' methods. Overwhelmingly the profession is in favour of a return to strong discipline and more formal methods."
That is just the point which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, made towards the end of his speech. The quotation goes on:
"These new ideas come from professors of education and training college lecturers and would soon be abandoned if these people actually had to take classes. Mind you, at council meetings of the various teachers' unions it would be professional suicide to voice our real feelings on this subject. We should be stamped as reactionaries. But in the privacy of our common rooms our real opinions can be voiced, and any journalist who cares to penetrate them would hear the truth."
My Lords, it is much to be hoped that those in the profession who share these misgivings expressed by the school-master will not allow themselves to be browbeaten by the stigma of "reactionary". I hope that they will speak up, and speak firmly. I cannot believe that any harm would come to them if they did so. I strongly suspect that at least some of the trouble about literacy could be cured by a return not to the three Rs (which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, described as "soulless, repetitive, and mechanical") but to discipline and to formal classes. I believe that a close examination of the content and manner of what is being taught in both primary and secondary schools, and of the methods of teaching teachers themselves, is something that is increasingly worrying parents, and is far more important than the endless and now rather sterile debate on educational reorganisation. I, too, hope very much that the Bullock Report (and in many ways it is a pity that we are not debating this subject in the light of that Report) will give a real impetus towards reform in these fields.
3.33 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I know that we all owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for having initiated this debate today on an extremely important subject which has raised such a distinguished number of speakers and such a good attendance in your Lordships' House. We all look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who will add so much, particularly on education, to your Lordships' debates in the future. As an ex-member of Christ Church it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blake, on what I believe is his first speech from the Dispatch Box —and a very good and able one, if I may say so.
We all hope to get from the Bullock Report a rather more scientific approach to the number and the definitions of illiteracy and literacy than we have had in the past. But I think it would not be unfair to say that the number of people in this country who are functionally illiterate cannot be less than about 2 million. By "functionally illiterate", I do not mean people who cannot read very simple things; I mean people whose literacy is considerably below what is needed for the situation in which they find themselves in the modern world. When one remembers that it is calculated that in order to fill in welfare forms one should have a literacy age of 18, and when one considers the number of people who must fall below that standard and who have to fill in welfare forms, one is aware of an immense human problem, one which goes far beyond the confines of the education problem as such.
Two questions immediately come to mind: Is the position getting better and are we doing anything about it? Broadly speaking, I think the answer to both questions is, "Yes". The literacy standards of schoolchildren went up steadily till 1964. Since then they have certainly reached a plateau. It is possible that they have declined slightly. Again, we must await the Bullock Report to have the full diagnosis on this aspect, but I would say the standards have declined only very slightly if at all. It is difficult to tell what the specific factors may be which have caused this halt in the improvement of the plateau. I think that we must be

881
very cautious about producing too simplistic judgments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has rightly said, it is nothing to do with school reorganisation as such. What evidence there is seems to show that although the reading standards of the brighter pupils in comprehensive schools are below the national average for brighter children (and this is something which those of us who are in favour of reorganisation in comprehensive schools would do well to take to heart) at the lower range the comprehensive schools are better at dealing with people who have reading difficulties than the average of other schools. So almost certainly it has nothing to do with reorganisation. I think there may be some-thing (and I am impressed by the arguments which have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King) to be said about teaching methods in primary schools. But we must not take this position too far; there are dangers in it. In fact, literacy is merely part of a general articulateness. Spelling, although useful, is not everything.
Often one can notice that although the present school system produces much worse spelling and, to a certain extent, worse grammar (and that has its very real dangers which I do not underrate) than more orthodox and old-fashioned methods, nevertheless it produces a spontaneity and an articulateness in expression which is very useful and which can only be a good thing. I do not say that this outweighs any loss in formal literacy: I do not think that it does. I merely say that I think this is a difficult field where we cannot be too dogmatic and where certainly the findings of the Bullock Committee will be of immense help. In the past different methods of teaching reading have been blamed, although not in this debate. They may be muddling for a few, but I do not believe this can be anything but a minor factor, and experiment in this field is, of course, to be welcomed because it may add something really worth while. What seems to me probable is that there is, in fact, a genuine plateau. There is in all human endeavour. There come moments when one cannot go on improving things by using the same methods and within the
882
same system. Not everything can go on getting better and better without a change of approach, and it seems to me that it may well be true that we have reached a rather natural plateau in this matter caused by the nature of our society.
I should now like to answer the second question that we ought to ask ourselves: are we doing anything about this? I think here we may be pleased and may congratulate Governments of all complexions on the fact that they are taking this matter seriously. It was a very good thing to set up the Bullock Committee and we are all looking forward to its report. The Government have recently given a grant of £1,000,000 to an Adult Literacy Resources Centre, and they are to be congratulated very much on that action. The BBC is to start a three-year project to combat adult illiteracy later this year, and again that is something extremely worth while and which we can be extremely pleased with.
What more then needs to be done? The most crucial area, of course, is among the very young in the poorer sections of the population. Here I should like firmly to make the point that there is no substitute for the abolition of poverty and the abolition of the slums. The general politicians cannot swing this problem completely on to the educationalists. If real poverty were to be abolished, and certainly if the slums were abolished, a great deal of the problem of illiteracy would be solved straightaway. To a certain extent, all the teachers—the poor, bloody infantry if I may say so of this problem—are trying to do is to heal wounds caused by our social planning.
I come back to the point I made earlier: that I think there may be a very real plateau of achievement in this field which is caused by the kind of society we are. But, of course, there are things which can be done in the purely educational field. Pre-school education in this country is abysmally lacking in quantity and now, in the present climate, is likely to be the first victim of cutback; as in Buckinghamshire which, as we know, proposes to close all the county's 14 nursery classes and five nursery schools catering for 2,000 children.
Obviously to hope for big advances in this area is over-optimistic in the present financial climate, but there are

883
imaginative steps which could be taken. I suggest that one step is that whatever the attitude to child-minding services as they at present exist, some kind of support and some kind of establishment to try to help child minders to give a less negative experience to the children under their care might be well worth exploring. In the orthodox school years we need better diagnosis of reading difficulties, more trained teachers and, above all, a better curriculum. Better diagnosis probably involves more reading tests which are useful to find out the causes of illiteracy in specific children—for example, those with specific physical or mental handicaps, and specific diagnosable reading problems.
My Lords, I do not suggest that we come back to having tests every week or every month, with a rat race for marks. Such tests need not be orthodox. There was an account in the Evening Standard two or three days ago about experiments to detect basic reading faults using a machine made of two old cigar boxes and a battery operated light. It may well be asked how many primary schools have two old cigar boxes, but nevertheless substitutes for those can probably be found. A better curriculum is also important, involving much better material for reading. A major cause of illiteracy —probably the major cause—is not wanting to learn to read. As Bruno Bettelheim recently remarked in an article in Encounter, admittedly largely dealing with the American experience:
"I do not need to pose the question of what vistas are opened up to the child as a reward for having become able to read. See Spot Run. See Spot Jump."
The same author points out that in what is probably a misguided attempt to relate reading materials to what the child already likes and what his interests are, a great deal of reading material is related to children's play activities: e.g., I mean i.e., it is consistently reminding them that they really want to get out to play, instead of trying to lead them into a reading experience, and encouraging them into the world of the mind. This is an area which needs a great deal more exploration and probably in which a revolution is overdue.
Another admittedly long-term curriculum reform would be to teach
884
today's children a little more about child development so that they can help their children better, which might be slightly more useful than some of the subjects which they learn about in schools. In the field of adult education most of the paths have already been charted. The Russell Report on Adult Education needs to be implemented. One important step which must not be neglected, and on which action can be taken now and in the immediate future, is that the BBC's major effort should be given maximum effectiveness. All the material should be made available on video cassettes, or in other ways, for educational establishments, community centres and libraries, and the money for this must be found.
Another thing which can happen is that the whole attitude of people learning to read can be made much more positive by the greater use of schools as community centres. One of the troubles which has been mentioned is that people are ashamed of illiteracy; they do not want to reveal it. If schools are being used as teaching centres for the whole of the population of a community, it is much easier to get people into adult education classes.
My Lords, these are some of the specific points which I think it is worth our while looking at, and which no doubt the Bullock Committee have been looking at. But I do not think that we will really seriously tackle this problem until we realise that it is important to individual people. It is not just a function of our society—how well people can express themselves, or how illiterate they are. In the end it comes down to individual tragedies which should rouse our compassion just as much as, say, the diseases caused by inhaling asbestos, which we have heard about earlier today.
Every illiterate, no matter how wise or useful he or she may be in his or her life—and so many of them are—is a member of the walking wounded of our society, not able to lead a full life in the modern world in which they find themselves—impoverished and, to that extent, diminished. Each one is the centre of a personal tragedy, almost every one of which could have been, and should have been, avoided, and the responsibility is upon us all

CYPRUS
3.49 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Cyprus being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I will with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a Statement on Cyprus.
"During my recent visit to the United States, I had separate discussions on Cyprus with Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary General of the United Nations.
"It is Her Majesty's Government's view that at present and despite their slow progress, the talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash continue to provide the best chances of moving towards a settlement. The Government fully support these talks and hope that they will be pursued with a greater sense of urgency. A lasting settlement is most likely to be achieved if the Cypriots themselves agree upon the nature of a constitutional settlement. The present talks provide the people of Cyprus, of both communities, with an opportunity to do so.
"Our policy remains based on active support for the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and of the General Assembly. I reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government will be ready to support any solution which is acceptable to both communities, and which maintains the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus. I also reaffirm that, if it is the wish of the parties that we should assist in wider negotiations to reach a settlement, we remain ready to do this or to help in any other forum.
"The House is aware that the transfer to Turkey of the Turkish Cypriots from the Western Sovereign Base Area is now complete. Winter weather in the camp in the Western SBA had, as I saw for myself when
886
I visited Akrotiri briefly on my way out to Africa, brought about a significant worsening in the conditions of these unfortunate refugees. It would have been inhumane to withhold agreement any longer. I was not willing to use these people as political pawns and I refute the suggestion that, by this decision, Her Majesty's Government have shown some change in our policy towards Cyprus. Some have even used it to argue that we support partition. This is untrue.
"I remain very conscious of the plight of the Greek Cypriot refugees. We shall continue to do whatever we can to help them. The British Government have not forgotten that many Greek Cypriots have lost their homes and livelihood. By virtue of their numbers alone, the Greek Cypriots' problems are much greater. Britain has given over £1·5 million in relief aid to Cyprus, but no lasting solution can be found until there has been a political settlement. Nor have we forgotten the many British subjects who have suffered in Cyprus, whether by loss of life or injury, or by damage or loss of property. We are trying to obtain compensation for them and to protect their interests in every way we can.
"Humanitarian considerations equally call for a move by Turkey to help the Greek Cypriot refugees. I understand that a proposal has been made that some 5,000 Greek Cypriots should be allowed to return to their homes in an area round Athienou. It remains to be seen whether the conditions for their return can be accepted by the Greek Cypriots, as the villages concerned are behind the Turkish lines.
"It would be wrong to assume too quickly that these talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash are irrevocably deadlocked at any one point. The problems of Cyprus have never been easy to solve and a long-term settlement of the many humanitarian, social and political problems of the Republic as a whole can only be found by some agreement between the two communities themselves.
"I am in continuing contact with Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash as well as with the Greek and Turkish Governments,

887
and have urged on all of them the need for serious bilateral negotiations to be pursued without delay."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated this Statement which is really a progress report on the situation in Cyprus. I think that the whole House realises and appreciates the delicacy of the situation and the fact that Her Majesty's Government are, and have been, in the difficult position of needing to be seen to be fair all the way around. The difference of opinion over Cyprus has led to concern over the Turkish relationship with NATO. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to comment on that in any way. Other than that, I think the most helpful thing I could do would be to say virtually nothing; but I would merely add, by way of comment, that we are glad to hear of the proposal for 5,000 Greek Cypriots to return to their homes near Athienou. I hope that this will turn into reality. The noble Lord rightly said that no lasting solution can be obtained until there is a political settlement. We agree whole-heartedly with that view and we are grateful to the noble Lord for his reassurance that the Government will do everything to bring about that solution.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and say that we endorse the action that has been and is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in the tragic situation in which Cyprus finds itself. May I add a personal note of gratitude to the noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place on the humanitarian approach adopted towards these extremely complex social and military problems. I note that Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to urge that negotiations towards a settlement be carried out. In this connection, I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to comment on whether the position has been eased or hindered in any way by the action of the United States Congress which, I understand, is now imposing an embargo on the export of arms from the United States to Turkey.
888
My Lords, the Statement makes no mention of the withdrawal of troops. The withdrawal of troops has been sought by the United States Government and by the United Nations, and I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to comment on this and on whether, at the present time, there is a build-up of troops and of equipment by the Turkish Government. My last question relates to the reference in the Statement to compensation being sought by Her Majesty's Government for British subjects who have suffered losses in Cyprus. Is the noble Lord able to give any indication of the sources from which compensation is being sought and whether any interim payments are likely to be made to those British subjects who have suffered so much?
3.58 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, first, I welcome warmly the tone and content of the intervention by the spokesman of the Conservative Opposition. This is most helpful in what is continuing to be a difficult and delicate situation. However, he rightly put to me some important questions, primarily about the Turkish attitude to NATO. We place the highest value on full Turkish membership of the Alliance and hope that the Turkish Government recognise this and recognise, also, that their membership is as much in the interest of Turkey as in that of the Alliance. I am glad to inform the noble Earl and the House that I have just been handed a message saying that the Turkish Prime Minister has told the Press that it is out of the question for Turkey to leave the military side of NATO. This is a hopeful indication that, despite the stresses and strains that are inevitable in this context, wise council, as we should expect, is obtaining primacy in that great country, that great friend and ally of ours.
The noble Earl also referred to the welcome development of the proposed return of some 5,000 Greek Cypriots to the area of Athienou. We very much hope that this will happen, that they will feel confidence in taking advantage of this gesture and of the facilities provided, and that this number will be the precursor of a much greater return. The noble Lord who speaks for the Liberal Party on these matters was at one with all of us, of course, on the humanitarian

889
basis of what we have done in returning some 9,390 refugees from the Western Sovereign Base Area, in the first instance, to Turkey. He asked one or two questions, including one relating to the United States and its relations with Turkey on which I know he would not wish me to comment in detail. Perhaps he would take note of what I have said about the Turkish attitude to NATO as it is now, hopefully, developing.
As to the withdrawal of troops, the Turkish authorities have indicated that they will make a fairly substantial withdrawal, in the order of 1,000 troops. This is to be greatly welcomed but, of course, it will need to be followed up by a continuing withdrawal if it is to have a real impact on the psychology and the politics of this very difficult situation. On the question of compensation, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that my right honourable friend has authorised Her Majesty's Ambassador in Ankara to make representations to the Turkish Government, and a similar approach to the Government of Cyprus is under consideration. These representations will be made forcefully and continuously until the right solution, as we greatly hope, will be found. I do not think that I have failed to comment on any question of substance.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has not mentioned interim payments, but no doubt that is covered by the noble Lord's answer.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am afraid I can add nothing to the last two sentences of my reply. The noble Lord will understand that what I have said covers the question of interim payments. We hope to have a quicker settlement of that side of it than of the totality of the problem.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

LITERACY
3.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I rise in the confidence that your Lordships show special sympathy and tolerance to those who speak for the first time in this House. I hope your tolerance will allow me to say a little on the immediate subject of the debate, and perhaps rather more on another problem concerning the education service, which to me is fundamental and is at the moment in danger.
The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, adequately set out the symptoms of the disease. It is unusual for those of us engaged in the administration of education to discuss matters of curriculum at all. I first became a chief education officer 40 years ago, and at that time it was quite improper for us to presume to know anything about the curriculum and methods, even though we had all been teachers before we became administrators. At that time, we administered the Act of 1921 and under that Act the duty of a local education authority, and the duty of a parent, was to cause the child to receive efficient instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic. It was also the duty of the teacher. The training colleges, as they then were—now colleges of education—were completely conscious of that duty. They therefore devoted a very substantial portion of their time to training teachers to teach the three Rs, and in my judgment this was done very effectively.
What I believe has happened is that there has been a misinterpretation of the Education Act of 1944. It was manifestly right and proper, with the expected extension of the period of schooling and the intention of providing secondary education for all children, that the duty on a local education authority and on a parent should become wider than merely the three Rs. So we had the three As. The duty of an authority was to cause children to be educated according to their age, ability and aptitude—a very right and proper aim for secondary education—but it was not the intention that the three As should replace the three Rs and I fear there has been misinterpretation.

891
In the colleges, as the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said, there has perhaps been a decreasing emphasis on training teachers to teach the three Rs. Indeed, I have heard the view expressed that it is old-fashioned, out of date, no longer the done thing. If you go to an infants' school now, you will see the most excellent examples of creative activity, but it is almost improper to ask if the children can read. There has been a change of attitude in the teaching profession and in the educational world. I think it was Annie Oakley who expressed the view that,
"You don't have to know how to read and write if you're out with a feller in the pale moonlight".
And I have no doubt that that is true. My Lords, there are many things we can do naturally. But learning to read is not one of them and the opinion frequently expressed, that if children are left to get personal experience, to which the noble Lord referred, they will somehow come to learn to read, is manifest nonsense. It is simply untrue.
The need is for a change of attitude. I am profoundly grateful that the subject has been raised in this House, because it will draw it to attention. The need is for structured teaching in the infant schools of reading and subsequently. The noble Lord was very right in stressing that it is not enough to be able to read. I think that no student should go to a university without an intensive course in speed reading, and then he would probably more readily get through the work he has to do there. But, my Lords, education is not merely a means of instruction: it is a most important factor in social control. Those of us who watched the schools in Germany between 1933 and 1938 can be in no doubt of the validity of that statement.
I have spent 40 years in administration in the education service and I have come to have a deep faith in a basic principle, the principle of distribution of power in the administration of the education service, and I feel that there are dangers. If we look to the East, we see systems of education with a high degree of central control and direction, which I think must be accepted as effective instruments of instruction but in which freedom is
892
minimal, if present at all. If we look to the West, we see systems of education with the minimum influence of Central Government and a great devolution of power, which undoubtedly provide a very high degree of freedom but in which educational opportunity is dependent on place of birth. It is one thing to be born in Alabama: it is a very different thing to be born in California.
My Lords, in this country for 70 years or more we have remained poised between these two extremes. We accept functions relating to education which are properly the responsibility of Central Government. I suggest that there are essentially three, apart from general legislation relating to the service. The first is to prescribe those things which must be common in all areas—the age at which children must go to school, the age at which they may leave and so on. The second is to prescribe minimum standards with which all authorities must comply, which is done in regulations relating to school buildings, frequency of schools being open and so on. The third is to provide financial support which corrects the impact of the relative wealth and poverty of different authorities, in order to make educational opportunity independent of place of birth.
These are the essential functions of Central Government. The local authorities are the necessary instrument for providing and administrating the service, providing buildings, equipment and employing the necessary personnel. The teaching profession has the responsibility of deciding what should be taught, how it should be taught and—perhaps most important—of seeking to ascertain the abilities and aptitudes of children in order to secure that these are developed as fully as possible after they have acquired the necessary tools to that end of the three Rs.
I fear there is a danger in the present situation. Let me make it clear that this is not because I think there is any question of deliberate policy on anybody's part to change the structure of the education which is the envy of the world. But there is a financial problem. The rate system is simply unable to cope with a highly inflationary situation. This is well known; the Layfield Committee has been set up to find an answer. We await

893
that answer and it would be improper for me to make any detailed comment on that. My concern is simple. Whatever solution is found to the financial prob-lem—and the solution must be found— we must make certain that it does not impact fundamentally on the distribution of power in the education service of this country, which I believe is an essential factor in maintaining freedom. I am not posing a dilemma. I want our children to be literate, but I want them to be free. My Lords, I am most grateful for the sympathy of your attention.
4.12 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I can with absolute sincerity and, I am sure, with the agreement of your Lordships, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on the ability, authority and fluency with which he has spoken. I greatly envied him when I thought of my own first maiden speech, which was in this House many years ago in 1945 when another place was sitting in your Lordships' Chamber. I also greatly admired the way he made such a cogent and logical speech to the House without using notes—something I have always wanted to do but have never trusted myself to try. Few people can speak with richer experience, knowledge and authority on any educational subject than the noble Lord, because of his lifelong devotion to the educational service. From time to time, he had difficult, intricate and controversial problems to solve, in regard to which anything he did was bound to create some controversy somewhere. I have always admired him for steering his way through, sticking to principle and being realistic, and also for the way he did so without forfeiting the friendship of the many people with whom he had to deal. Your Lordships listened with such great attention to the noble Lord that I know I am expressing your views when I say that we hope to hear him again often and before very long.
I must declare a rather remote interest in the subject that I am going to talk about. A good many years ago, I was concerned in an attempt to extend the use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet in our schools. This gave me some firsthand experience of the subject about which I want mainly to talk today. Two things especially impressed me as a result of my experience: first, the schools were
894
and are still—as the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, pointed out—turning out an unacceptably high proportion of illiterates and near-illiterates and, subject to what the Bullock Report may say, the figure is probably round about 20 per cent., or more if you interpret literacy as a reasonable standard. The second thing I discovered is what a terrible thing illiteracy is in a literate society. It does not matter much about being illiterate in a society that cannot write, but it is a terrible thing to be illiterate in a society which is, in the main, literate.
This leads to many of the grave problems facing us today. Pupils who cannot keep up with or even understand what is going on in the classrooms in their schools, increasingly accept themselves as failures; they revolt in various ways and withdraw themselves in various ways from participation in the schools. I have no doubt that illiteracy is one of the main causes—not the only one, of course—of bad behaviour in school and truancy and violence both inside and outside school. The sense of resentment and failure that results from inability to read and, all the more, to write, continues after school as is shown, for example, by the appalling standard of illiteracy in our borstals. It is therefore extremely important to reduce the rate of illiteracy by all means possible.
One basic cause among the many with which your Lordships have dealt with great authority—and they must all be taken into account—which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, also mentioned, is our orthodox alphabet which has the misfortune of having only 26 letters to represent the 44 sounds of the English language. In addition, for historical reasons, very many sounds are written in quite different and inconsistent ways. Altogether there are some 2,000 different characterisations of this kind in the English language. These factors put a formidable obstacle in the way of young children learning to read and write.
As the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said, the Initial Teaching Alphabet was invented by Sir James Pitman to bring simplicity and consistency into English spelling for children who are first learning to read. I should like to elaborate a little on the remarks made on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord

895
Maybray-King, with which I thoroughly agree. The basic principle of the Initial Teaching Alphabet is that it contains 44 letters to represent specifically and clearly the 44 sounds of our speech. The effort of learning 44 letters rather than 26—which is an effort, of course—is nothing like so great as learning the 2,000 different spellings involved if one uses the orthodox alphabet and spelling.
There is much evidence, on balance, that the use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet greatly improves the ability of young children to learn to read and write. Perhaps the most important evidence was the independent study carried out in 1969 for the Schools Council. One fact brought out in this Report—which I can confirm from my own experience— is how quickly children who used the Initial Teaching Alphabet learned to write creatively. After all, one teaches pupils to read in order to teach them to write. These children could instantly spell any word they could speak and which they knew.
One main argument advanced against the Initial Teaching Alphabet concerns what is called the "transition" from the Initial Teaching Alphabet to the ordinary orthodox alphabet. It is said that children must learn and then "unlearn" the Initial Teaching Alphabet, and then learn the ordinary alphabet. But considerable experience shows that it does not work that way. The transition is easy and natural. The main reason for that is that the letters in the Initial Teaching Alphabet are very closely similar to those in the orthodox alphabet. Children, it seems, regard the Initial Teaching Alphabet and the ordinary alphabet as similar forms of grown-up writing. As they become proficient, they scarcely notice the difference between the two alphabets. The Initial Teaching Alphabet can greatly aid in remedying illiteracy in adults, and I am very glad indeed about the grant which Her Majesty's Government are giving to help this cause.
One of the examples which illustrate the efficiency of the Initial Teaching Alphabet for adults is the school run by the Army, which teaches that Alphabet to soldiers who cannot read or write. I visited the school myself and can confirm the report that those running this school
896
have had no failures in teaching men to read and write—men who went through our school system without being able to do either of these things. As a consequence, there was also a very great improvement in the self-confidence and morale of the men. Similar reports of success in the use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet have come from certain borstals.
My final point is that the system has had beneficial effects in teaching English to foreigners. I think there is perhaps a certain danger of English, as a world language, becoming something like Chinese; that is, a language which is written everywhere in the same manner, but pronounced so differently that people from different parts of China can communicate only in writing and not in speech. The same thing applies in India. I have seen people in Madras, for instance, finding it extremely difficult to communicate with people from Bengal. The same thing has also been observed in many parts of Africa. Experiments have been made in parts of Nigeria, and tests have established that the use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet improves pronunciation and helps to promote literacy in the English language. I think that the wider use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet in other countries could help to maintain and spread the use of English as a world language. For all these reasons, there seems to me to be a very strong case, if I may say so to my noble friend, for greater official support for the use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet in our own infant and junior schools, and in similar schools in other countries.
4.23 p.m.
Lord RENWICK: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships in addressing the House for the first time. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for giving me this opportunity to speak today. I should like to approach this subject of the importance of literacy from the point of view of dyslexics. My justification is that literacy, like food, assumes a far greater importance to those who have not got it. The interest which I should like to declare is that one of my sons is a dyslexic. It is a fact of life that causes are pleaded more often by those who have a personal involvement; but dyslexia, or degrees of

897
it, appear to be so widespread that I suggest we are all becoming involved. In no way do I want to be controversial in my maiden speech and I shall therefore confine my remarks to observations on the difficulties that afflict my son and others like him.
The ability to read and absorb information, and then to convey it, is the basis of civilised behaviour. It has long been fashionable to gauge intelligence by literacy. How very unfair that judgment is to a dyslexic. It seems that the inability to read causes emotional disturbances. These start, if I may take your Lordships back to your early schooldays, when one child out of a class of, say, 20 is unable to read aloud a sentence from a book, and everyone laughs at him. Soon that child will have been segregated from the class and made to read a simple childish book, while the others go on to more exciting and interesting stuff.
That lone child feels a sense of failure that I am sure has to be experienced to be understood. Children hate to be laughed at; they become aggressive or introvert. Children hate to be bored; they become disruptive in class. Having difficulty in reading, they become frustrated because their minds are crying out for new knowledge and new interest. In our society today the skill of literacy is required to provide these for them. They also fear to go to school, because sympathy, understanding and encouragement are so often sadly lacking. Please do not think, my Lords, that I am blaming teachers. Often a dyslexic is inattentive, finds it difficult to concentrate, holds back the more literate members of the class and is generally disruptive. Therefore there is probably even a sense of relief in the class when he plays truant.
Even in adulthood, a dyslexic has no easy time. It is not easy to find a worthwhile job which matches his or her intelligence, for a dyslexic can be very articulate and can come from any range of intelligence or background. Dyslexia is an invisible infirmity, and the stigma which society attaches to illiteracy is in no way alleviated by the sympathy and compassion so rightly shown to those who are more obviously handicapped. However, many dyslexics have overcome their difficulties, though they may never become
898
wholly literate or find reading and writing to be the pleasure it is for so many. They have struggled to overcome the lack of this vital basic skill only, I am sure, through a determination and strength of character that is not given to us all. Some children have the benefit of remedial tuition, and so are able to take their place with confidence in a normal school among other children of their own age, knowing that their teacher will make small allowances for them and encourage them with praise when it is appreciated that an enormous effort has been made to complete written work, however untidy, which would have been simple to others.
Among those who seem to be overcoming this disability I am happy to include my son. He has suffered most of the early frustrations and the sense of failure that I have described, and has shown many of the emotional disturbances. But at the age of six he was fortunate in having a concerned mother and an understanding doctor, who together—not without some difficulty, because of his young age—worked to have his condition assessed and provided remedial tuition in addition to his normal schooling. Now, two and a half years later, with remedial tuition provided only once a week, he is far better adjusted. He is happier at school among boys of his own age, and though of course there will be difficulties ahead he understands his disability and, I am sure, will overcome it. He will have his mother and his doctor to thank for the perseverance they showed in those early months to obtain the best advice and help. He will also thank his first headmistress for spotting his problem so early, and his remedial teachers for many painstaking hours.
My Lords, this House, too, would be thanked in the same way by many thousands of children throughout the country if in some way it could encourage teachers, education authorities, psychologists, neurologists, doctors, remedial teachers and parents all to work together to identify the problem in young children, to find ways of giving remedial tuition, to change slightly the traditional teaching techniques and to give the understanding and encouragement necessary so that they too can enjoy at least some of the advantages of literacy.
4.31 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, it is my pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, on his informative and very interesting maiden speech, and to hope that the House will hear him again many times. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on his speech. We hope also to hear him again soon. I join with other Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Maybray-King for having initiated the debate. The noble Lord is, I believe, the only Doctor of Philosophy to have graced the Speaker's Chair in the other place and he is also among the very small number of former headmasters to sit in your Lordships' House. He has brought to this debate special qualifications, knowledge and experience. I have listened with fascination and the deepest interest to what was a very persuasive speech and I have tried hard to think how or by whom he could be opposed. I have been able to think of only two examples. The first—and I imagine that he could have been found a place among the official Opposition had he not lived before Parliament existed— was the Caliph Haroun Al Rashchid, who observed that,
"Writing is an occupation only for slaves."
I think my noble friend Lord Maybray-King would soon make mincemeat of that thesis.
My other candidate as an opposition speaker—and this time he comes from the Whig Benches—is the late noble Lord, the sixth Lord Byron, the poet. He wrote of the forebears of some of us:
"And 'tis some praise in peers to write at all."
I know that the noble Lord's descendent, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is to speak later in the debate and I hope that he may be able to join with me in acquitting the present Members of your Lordships' House of any inadequacy in that respect. I venture to think that that thesis likewise could easily be demolished.
My Lords, I do not wish to weary your Lordships by discussing further any of the matters that noble Lords have already raised. Rather, what I have to say is by way of a postscript and. as noble Lords will recollect, it was Sir Richard Steele who said:
"A Woman seldom Writes her Mind but in her Postscript."
900
I believe that illiteracy presents a grave problem for a few, and we are often concerned with minorities. Not so long ago, a schoolteacher who taught all three of my children gave up ordinary teaching to devote herself to remedial teaching. After qualifying, her first assignment was to a hospital to teach the rudiments of reading to a woman who was on a kidney machine, so that she could use the machine in her own home. Some weeks passed, but little or no progress was made by the patient, despite all the efforts of the instructress. The instructress then tactfully asked the patient whether it would be possible for her husband to read the instructions on the machine to her. The patient replied: "I'm afraid he can't do that because, although he became a sergeant in the Army, he can't read either." I was distressed and shocked by this incident, for here was a case where the patient could have been in her own home surroundings and have her family around her, but was prevented from this by her inability to acquire the skill of reading. However, it must be said that the Government provided her with every facility to learn the skill of reading and, likewise, that in the Army her husband would have had the opportunity to learn also.
My Lords, I was told recently by a retired Army officer, with considerable experience in these matters, that he was once faced with an illiterate recruit to whom he offered, as tactfully as he could, a course which could help him overcome his difficulty. The young man replied: "Thank you, Sir, but I am sorry, it would be no good." The officer asked him why and the young man replied: "You see, my father can't read either." In short, the young man was firmly convinced that illiteracy is hereditary. On this occasion, there again was every facility for remedial treatment and, indeed, also for the services of an Army psychiatrist.
My Lords, I read with care the Report of the Department of Education and Science, Children with Special Reading Difficulties, 1972. It is perhaps somewhat wider in scope than its title implies: it also considers illiterate and semiliterate adults, including children who have left school without having learnt the skill of reading. The recommendations of the Report, so far as they went

901
seem wise and sensible. It is surely best, from the point of view of the children affected, if their problems can be dealt with in an ordinary school to which the other children in the neighbourhood will in most cases be going and send to remedial education centres only those children who are not amenable to the special treatment that the school itself is able to provide.
However, reflecting on the Report, it occurs to me that it contains one extraordinary omission, so remarkable that I wonder how it came about. The Report discusses the difficulties of the children and the functions of teachers, educational psychologists, school medical officers and even psychiatrists in relation to the children affected. It recommends additional remedial education centres where these do not exist. But nowhere does it make any mention of parents of the children. I am not a teacher or a psychologist, still less a doctor or a psychiatrist, but wherever a child is in any difficulty I should have thought that the first thing to do was to inquire into the home circumstances and to enlist the active co-operation of the parents. It seems to me quite idle to expend public money on additional remedial education centres if what would cost absolutely nothing—the interest and active co-operation of the parents—is not secured. It may be that some schools and some remedial education centres do co-operate with parents, and, of course, I should be glad to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, who will reply to the debate, that they do do so. Nevertheless, the matter is not mentioned in the Report, as I feel it should have been. I hope very much that, if necessary, the noble Lord will draw the Minister's attention to this.
My Lords, more than 20 years ago, when I first went to what is now Tanzania, the greatest proportion of the population was wholly illiterate. Of course, the problem there was wholly different from our present one here, but, even so, I think that we may be able to learn something from it, for today the population of Tanzania is very much more literate than it then was. I regret that I cannot give the precise figures What I recollect from the early 1950s was the enthusiasm of the late Lord Twining, who was then Governor, and
902
the vigour with which the literacy courses were conducted in quite difficult surroundings, in villages and small towns—a movement which was taken up with the greatest enthusiasm when Tanzania became independent. There was a problem of illiterate voters when elections were introduced in the late 1950s—a problem which I imagine has now largely been overcome, from all I have heard. The problem of an illiterate voter is a very real one indeed: an illiterate, whether he be on a kidney machine, in an army or at the ballot box is a disadvantaged citizen. He is also disadvantaged because, as I have suggested, it is due to his own psychological difficulties that he is precluded from sharing in all we derive from the skill of reading and writing.
My Lords, writing is, of course, far less important than reading, but it is needed, none the less, for full enjoyment of what the late Pope John XXIII spoke of as the "banquet of life". What the late Lord Twining did was to generate enthusiasm, and it is truly this that it can be said my noble friend Lord Maybray-King has done in this debate. As we have heard, there is much that is already being done in the matter: it can be only to the good if this debate can assist the Government to fresh enthusiasm. I am sure this is what the noble Lord who is to reply would wish.
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of RADNOR: My Lords, I, too, must ask your Lordships' indulgence since this is the first time that I have spoken before you. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for bringing up the whole subject of literacy. With its connotations of enthusiasm, to talk of literacy is better than illiteracy, which might have been rather depressing and perhaps would not have led towards solutions to the slightly illiterate situation in our population.
In the sophisticated society that exists today, it is hard to over-emphasise the importance of being literate. Children who have a language difficulty at school and who fail to read and write properly are at an obvious disadvantage when they come to seek employment. They are a disappointment to themselves, to their parents and probably to their teachers as well, and they are not truly able to pull

903
their full weight in the community. What is more so far as I am concerned, at the very beginning they have probably lost one of the major enjoyments of life and are often bound to an existence which to them and to others as well is more than unsatisfactory.
They have, as the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, has already said, an invisible disability, and in my brief experience of reading their letters and talking to them (and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, say it) are almost invariably ashamed of their predicament, which is sad in itself. Since their predicament is not observable and cannot be seen, they elicit little sympathy, and if it is discovered among the general population they arc probably taken to be just stupid—which, indeed, to be truthful, a proportion of them are, but not that many. It is the ones who are not literate and who are not stupid either who should perhaps particularly concern us today.
I have no particular knowledge of illiteracy in all the various forms it takes —these probably range from stupidity, which I have already mentoned, through a large range of conditions, some very distressing indeed. I should, however, like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and speak about dyslexia. At this stage I should, in accordance with your Lordships' practice, declare a dual interest because I am Chairman of the British Dyslexia Association and President of the Dyslexia Institute in Surrey. I feel in speaking about dyslexia that it is an area which perhaps, if it was dealt with, could have a good impact on the future literacy of our population.
Your Lordships know only too well that dyslexia went on the Statute Book in 1972, when local authorities were encouraged (if that is the right word) to deal with this condition or disability in their various geographical areas. Your Lordships will also know that dyslexia is a language disability which leads to faulty reading, writing and spelling. It is, in fact, a kind of under-performance in the person who suffers from the disability. A person suffering from dyslexia is, more often than not, of high intelligence but one whose language capability, with all that this means, lags behind. At the present time many such children are just taken as dull. They may well be sat at
904
the back of the class literally to idle their time through their statutory school career, and, almost inevitably, they take one of two courses; they either retire within themselves and opt out of the race altogether or become frustrated and aggressive. If your Lordships will put yourselves in their position—a high intelligence but unable to keep up in reading and writing—you will appreciate that frustration must indeed be there. I am sure you can imagine it. It is worth noting that the link between dyslexia and delinquency is a strong and real one.
The incidence of this disability is a little difficult to quantify. I believe that if anyone ever had quantified it a lot more would have been done about it. But it is variously estimated as affecting between 4 and 11 per cent. of our school population. Some of your Lordships might say that that is a guess. I thought it might be of interest to say that a week ago yester-day a short television programme on dyslexia was shown at a non-peak viewing hour, 2 o'clock in the afternoon. I was unfortunately unable to see it myself. As a result of that programme the British Dyslexia Association has received 903 letters on the subject from people who feel that this area of education is not working for them.
It might be useful to cast our minds back to 1970 when the Bill for the chronically disabled and sick was passing through your Lordships' Chamber. At that time, a number of noble Lords ex-pressed misgivings about certain clauses in the Bill because they felt they were too permissive and were not mandatory. Clause 27, to do with dyslexia, was one of those clauses. It seems that in the event those noble Lords who had these misgivings have turned out to be correct. Your Lordships will know that in the Act local authorities are asked, or have a duty, to inform the Minister of the provisions they are making for the alleviation of dyslexia; and they are asked to pro-vide proper facilities for the dyslexic "so far as is practicable". We are in the year 1975 and to all intents and purposes local education authorities have not found it practicable to conform to this directive. The special teaching that is required for the dyslexic is not available by and large. Nor are the facilities for diagnosis and assessment. As a result, a considerable number of young people will go, or run

905
the risk of going, through life illiterate and failing to fulfil their full potential, either to their own satisfaction or to the benefit of the country as a whole.
I feel it important in this debate to try to take a positive rather than a negative line. If we feel that these dyslexic people should be brought into the fold of literacy, action should be taken now because so far as dyslexia is concerned we are still at square one. It would seem important, if not imperative, that consideration should be given to the starting of courses in teacher training colleges so that a nucleus of teachers can be built up with the special skills needed to teach the dyslexic child or, for that matter, adult. I think there would be a need too—and it is worth thinking of—for in-service teacher training because this would be an integral part of teaching teachers who were then going to teach the dyslexics. Important, too, would be to think of the early identification of these children in school, since if they are discovered early enough they can be taught in groups, and if they are discovered too late there are problems with the teacher/pupil ratio. Also, it is important to think a little about research into dyslexia. For my part, I would look at research into teaching techniques to get over this known bottleneck of the bad dyslexic of 1:1 teaching, which is obviously a practical difficulty. Some dyslexics are taught in groups in some places now. As I say, I for my money would want to look into this matter a little more closely.
Our ultimate aim must surely be to have a teacher in every sizeable school who is trained and skilled to teach the dyslexic child. So long as we avoid teaching this disability in the way that it should be taught, we shall have a body of adult illiterates among us. We cannot afford to treat people in that way— so to speak, to throw people of good intelligence on the rubbish heap.
I have spoken for eleven minutes, which slightly amazes me. Sometimes it is customary in a maiden speech to think of an apt quotation. Mine comes only too easily, because in a broad sense it is the crux of the whole matter. It comes from the Children's Charter of the United Nations which states:
"A child who is educationally handicapped shall receive the special education treatment or care required by his particular condition."
906
This is just what the dyslexics in this country are not getting at the moment, and until they do they will not be able to add themselves to our literate population.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for instigating this most important debate and for his wonderful speech. It is a privilege today for me to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and to congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, on their most humane maiden speeches. This is a historic day in your Lordships' House, because two noble Lords have made their maiden speeches on dyslexia. I am sure that their gesture and personal experience will give encouragement to many parents throughout the country who have children who are suffering from this condition. I also look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because he, too, has personal experience of dyslexia.
The importance of literacy is in being able to keep up with education through school, to be able to select the job of one's choice, to read a newspaper, to fill in forms such as income tax and driving licence forms, or to write out a receipt. If a standard is not reached which enables one to do this, then there will be frustration. There seem to be many reasons why people cannot read or write. One of the commonest causes of illiteracy must be the lack of instruction. This accounts for millions of people in underdeveloped countries who cannot read or write. However, it should not apply to a sophisticated community like Britain.
There are some children who have inadequate intellectual calibre, which makes it difficult for them to acquire the art of reading, writing and arithmetic. This inadequacy is often incorrectly dismissed as being due to laziness, inattention or day dreaming. There are others who have "minimal brain damage". Some children fall behind in their learning, due to defects in hearing-loss or visual impairment which are not detected until the child goes to school. Even then they are often missed. There seems to be a need for a follow-up of children who miss the inspection of the school health service. There are children who have a

907
severe emotional upset which puts them back. This happened to the eldest son of my husband's cousin who was killed in Northern Ireland. At the age of seven he was making good progress at school, but with the shock of his father's death he could no longer read. Broken homes, unsatisfactory home conditions and incompatibility with a teacher can also play their part.
Perhaps today one of the factors in being behind with learning is truancy in our schools. There is a group of children who have great difficulty in learning to read and to spell. These children have already been mentioned by the noble Earl and the noble Lord who have made their maiden speeches today, and they are the children who are suffering from developmental dyslexia. The neurologists think that the reason may be a delayed maturation of that part of the brain which is concerned with learning the conventional meaning of graphic symbols, and also the correlation of the sound of a word with its visual appearance in print. Boys are involved at least four times as much as girls, but the reasons for developmental dyslexia still seem to be vague. To me it appears vital that more research in this field is done.
I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and your Lordships today the abysmal lack of diagnosing and understanding this condition in the North of England. The Dyslexic Society has not so far spread North. I speak now with a personal interest, because my husband and I have a son with developmental dyslexia. Since I had heard about dyslexia when I was working on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in 1970, I suspected this condition in our son when he showed great signs of frustration after being at school for two years, and I took him to our general practitioner who told me that there was no such condition. I insisted upon taking him to a paediatrician, but this I had to do privately. As a supporter of the National Health Service, this was against what I considered should be necessary. The paediatrician diagnosed cross laterality and suspected dyslexia and he arranged for our boy to see an educational psychologist, who found him to have an IQ of 126, but he was behind in learning by two years. But because the
908
educational psychologist's report did not mention dyslexia and the high IQ, the school cannot understand the slow progress. Again, privately I arranged for a remedial teacher to give lessons in the summer holidays, but I could not find one who was trained in treating dyslexic children.
In our local education authority there seems to be no organised remedial department. There is no doubt in my mind when I say that there must be a need for some teachers to recognise and understand this problem. As our boy goes up the school, his obvious need to shine in some aspect of school life is paramount. At the moment he excels at fighting in the playground. Is it surprising that parents become worried? To get our son fully assessed, I had to take him to a neurologist in London, again privately. Unless a disability is defined, it is impossible to accept and treat a condition, and this has been adequately stressed today by the two noble Lords.
While visiting a school which is attended by the daughter of a friend, I was told by one of the teachers that the girl was emotionally disturbed and could not read, because her father was a Member of Parliament and her parents were away from home so much. It was not until she was taken to an eye surgeon to have her eyes tested that he diagnosed dyslexia. This was at the age of 11. There is a lady who lives in the Wetherby area of Yorkshire. She went to our local borstal which has an excellent remedial department, and implored them to take her dyslexic daughter for remedial teaching. The borstal is frightened to do this, as it might open a floodgate of children who are in need of remedial teaching. Also, problems might arise from sending such children to borstal for classes. But I hope that that illustrates to your Lordships the real desperation that the parents of these children are in. Dyslexic children need both their confidence and general knowledge to be built up. Does the Minister think there should be research into the use of audio aids?
At the borstal to which I am attached, the excellent remedial work done there has the most beneficial effect on boys. Some boys cannot read, write or tell the time on reception, but in only a few months they make remarkable progress and for this they are very grateful. I hope

909
that in the future more will be done to improve basic teacher training courses, and there should be a built-in ability to recognise these problems. This point has already been stressed by several noble Lords. There seems to be a great need to attract the remedial teachers to primary schools. If the prevention of retardation in the early years could be concentrated on, so much expense and frustration could be eliminated in later life.
5.1 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for introducing this debate because it has certainly highlighted many important issues. I hesitated to take part because so many knowledgeable people are speaking in this debate and education is certainly not an issue to which I would normally wish to contribute. But I have always felt that illiteracy stems from one of three causes: the first is if a child is inadequately taught; the second is the unwillingness to learn, and the third is the inability to comprehend. If I were—indeed I may be —illiterate, it would be because of the second reason, the unwillingness to learn. I wish to concentrate on the third reason, the inability to comprehend.
I felt constrained to take part in this debate because of the experience I have had of this matter and because of the complete loneliness and isolation in which a parent or parents can find themselves when they realise that they have a child with a learning problem. I shall be on an entirely narrow point this afternoon, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for being thoroughly boring and pedantic in merely reciting my own experiences, but there is a reason behind it.
We have a child who has always had difficulty in reasoning; in reading, in writing and in calculating—money, figures, mean almost nothing to her. But in many other respects she is entirely— to use a most objectionable word—integrated. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said that what we need is better diagnosis. My noble friend Lord Radnor, in an excellent maiden speech, said that what we need is earlier diagnosis. Of course both are entirely right, but how do we do it? We realised
910
that there was a problem when the child was eight and we did not know what to do. We approached the local authority and a child psychiatrist came to see the child. I am always fearful of so-called "experts". However, he did various tests and then he said that it was necessary to take our daughter to a hospital to have an encephalographic test. She went to a clinically frightening-looking place where she was met by a whole lot of people wearing white coats. She then had something put on her head, which so terrified her that she was immediately sick. At the end of all this we were told that anyhow the results had not come out properly because the operator who normally did the test was on holiday and it had been done by an inexperienced person.
The child psychiatrist then took us on one side and said, "You have got to realise that you have a child who is very backward and the best thing for her is to send her to a school for educationally subnormal children". We considered this. We wished to be open-minded and we decided that if this was the case we should follow the expert's advice. We went to see the school, and the children there were quite clearly physically and mentally retarded. In our view it was a situation which would have been wholly unsuitable for our child and with the best will in the world considered that the advice we were given by the expert was bad advice. We did not take it.
Fortunately, at that school there was a master who was extremely good at dealing with these problems. He always said that it did not interest him why a child wanted to learn, but why a child did not want to learn, and he gave our child private lessons twice a week. Indeed, he has become our guide, philosopher and friend as to what to do about the child's progress. He told us quite clearly that she does not fit into any simple category, such as being a spastic or a dyslectic, or any neat compartment but that she has reasoning problems. He is a sound man and the tragedy was that he was moved to Bedford to teach immigrant children who are coming into this country and who are unable to speak English. He has to teach them to speak English, which is of course a great gain for those who are being taught but a great loss to

911
those who have children with remedial problems.
We felt then that the great problem was what kind of a school to send the child to. In fact she went to a convent where the headmistress said, "Let us see if we can help". This has been a great success and has helped her both socially and academically. But, of course, as I think my noble friend Lord Radnor said, it is far too easy for a child to sit at the back of a room and, like a wireless set, switch off. Then idleness and laziness become confused with backwardness, and these children are sufficiently crafty to know when they need to make an effort.
We then took her to a paediatrician who said, "The best thing to do is to go to a psychologist in London". This we did, like my noble friend Lady Masham, at great expense, and he again said that the child fitted into no neat compartment. He said: "What you must do is to send her to a school where she can develop all her other capabilities and progress as she is doing. You are doing the best that you can". It was comforting advice but it was not constructive.
Some five years ago we thought that we must make another effort and we took her to another paediatrician who was a friend of mine. We said, "We have a problem here, can you help us? "He said, "Yes", and he put us in touch with some other experts. More tests were done and they came to the conclusion that we wanted a certain type of school, one that would build on security, bring her on as a child, develop her natural talents, develop her personality and give her something to work for, but also individual help. Academic schools have no place for the backward; those schools that cater for backward children very often cater for the very backward. So we said, "Where do we find these schools?" And the answer was, "We do not know". So again we were up against the difficulty of what to do.
Through all these years the child has grown delightfully and charmingly and socially, and as a proper member of society, yet she still has these learning problems, and as an individual one just
912
says, "Where do I turn for guidance?" At last we have found a school which we think may help, although it remains to be seen. It is new; it is only two years old and has all the problems associated with newness and novelty. But the philosophy there is that with some children there are learning blockages in reading, writing, calculating and reasoning. Too often in our educational system the IQ tests and others show a child as either above a line, or below it. If the child is above a line, it can go to a normal school; if below a line it is classified as educationally subnormal and relegated to a school where it will mix with those who are mentally deformed or deranged.
The philosophy at this school is that the child may not be educationally subnormal, but merely may have difficulties in reasoning and writing. They want to try to find out why the child has these difficulties, what they are, and they try to find ways of circumscribing them. One child in this school came to it as an awkward and frustrated child. It was a very difficult child. Eventually, they discovered that this child had no idea about time; it could not tell the time. At the previous school, the child had perpetually been late for everything, and was perpetually castigated for being late, but the poor child literally did not understand what it had done wrong, because it could not understand the clock. When this was found to be the problem, the child relaxed entirely and has now become a very different child indeed. But the difficulty was to find out what was the problem. When that child arrived at the school, they said it was a broken child, but now it has become a fine member of the school.
My Lords, this is the first school that I have found where they try to tackle the problem that children who have IQs below the appropriate level need not be educationally subnormal. It is a new venture, and exceedingly expensive. It is a gamble. I went to my local authority to ask them, as they did not have such facilities in their own area, whether they would be prepared to make a grant towards this. After yet another visit by a psychiatrist, I had a letter which said, "We cannot recommend our authority to make a grant". I am sure that there are excel-lent reasons for this. The noble Lord,

913
Lord Alexander of Potterhill, in his most excellent maiden speech, referred to the particular problem of lack of cash.
Much has been said recently about helping children with learning difficulties. We think we are making tremendous progress. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, may say that a great deal is being done now, but my experience is that if you have a child with learning difficulties, you are on your own, both financially and from the point of view of seeking help. Where do you go? If you go to a local authority, they will say, "The educationally subnormal school would have been the best school for that child". But it would have been the wrong place. I can understand what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, meant when he said that after a television programme his Society received 900 letters. It is precisely this point that they are dealing with. People do not know who to go to for help. If one asks, "Who are the experts?", and if you are not careful, you will trail your child from doctor to doctor trying to find someone to help, which in turn gives the child a multiplicity of hangups of a totally different nature from the original problem.
When people talk about private education being wrong, one wonders whether they have ever thought this thing through. Is it wrong to deny the child remedial help of a specialised nature if it is avail-able? If it is wrong, local authorities must share the burden of the responsibility. If local authorities are not prepared to shoulder this responsibility, children with this kind of problem will be subjected to a system wholly wrong and totally unsuited to their needs. My own modest experience in this sphere makes me wonder how many children there are who are being? subjected to a totally wrong kind of treatment and education.
My Lords, I nearly did not take part in this debate, because one has a natural reluctance and hesitation in parading in front of others one's own personal problems and experience, even to such an understanding audience as your Lord-ships. But I decided to do so, for I feel that in this specific area of education one is moving very much in uncharted waters. There must be many who have similar experiences to those of mine, and who have not had the privilege of drawing
914
the problems to the attention of those who may be in a position to do some-thing. It is a twilight area of education; twilight because it is difficult to pinpoint the problem—each child is different. It is twilight because once you are in it, you cannot see which way to go; you grope around looking for a light, with the horrible realisation that, in the end, you are on your own.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, I have been sitting as a kind of sandwich between one maiden speaker on my left and two on my right. I have listened with great pleasure to the sonorous brain power of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on my left, and the expressions from the heart the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, not only for having been the master of ceremonies of this debate, but for having said—if I heard it correctly—that I illuminate the subject whenever I join in a debate. The noble Lord has no idea of the balm that is to my soul, because normally people refer to my calligraphy and say, "Can't you get your letters typed?". So for once to be chosen for a talent which illuminates instead of one which obscures makes me feel very happy.
My Lords, in this debate I may be a voice of darkness instead of illumination, because I propose to put forward a few of the conclusions I have come to during 20 years of teaching all sorts of subjects to a variety of people, most of them between the ages of 18 and 19, a few between the ages of 11 and 14, and all of them males. What observations I put forward may have more of a bearing on adult education than anything else.
I have myself questioned whether literacy in the sense of being able to read should receive such exclusive emphasis. I have been in the forefront of the battle. At one time I taught classes of 54. I have set the papers and corrected them, with the exception of the final examination. I was so determined to teach people well a subject which was unpopular with them that I gave up my prospects of advancement in the Army in order to study the people better. I am very bad at remembering names. The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, may

915
remember that he met me today in the Princes' Chamber with my guests. I was unable to introduce my guests because for the moment I had forgotten their names.
Having regard to this difficulty, when I started to teach I made a special study of how to learn people's names, and it was successful. This is something which is ignored by most teachers, yet is vital. When I had developed my maximum capacity, I could learn 50 names in 50 minutes. A fortnight after the beginning of the term at Sandhurst, I could address 600 cadets by their names, and after that first fortnight I never made a mistake.
I studied these people. I taught them a variety of things. Economics was what I was supposed to teach them, but sometimes I played three cadets a day at squash and other things of that kind. I found you could control people and interest them if you knew them and they knew you. When I arrived for the first term a cadet said, "What are you teaching, Sir?" "Economics", I said. He said, "We had a bonfire last term and the fuel was the textbook for economics". So it was not popular. But I did get hold of them. I reduced the syllabus. I think that is important; we teach people far too much. I controlled the examiner; I insisted that the examination papers should be submitted to me so that they were not asked questions which were not on the syllabus. Naturally, I did not tell anybody, and in any case I could not have told all 200.
By degrees it worked. People used to flock into my room, particularly towards the end of the term, in the evenings; at 10.30 I used to have to say, "I cannot keep you up all night", and 30 or 40 of them went out of the door, but they came voluntarily. You have to take people as they are. I have trained people to run, to box, to swim, to play squash up to army championship standards. I have reached that standard in some of those activities but not in all; I was quite willing to teach things about which I knew nothing, because I knew something about other things, and they took the rest for granted.
When one is training athletes they become stale. I remember a student who
916
slept in the front row, not because I was boring; I can assure your Lordships that for a time I could hold an audience, and I was not boring even on a dull subject. But this fellow slept, and I could see that he had done too much. It was a hot summer afternoon. He had been drilling. He was not of very robust physique. He slept and I did not wake him. At the end of the term he came to me and said, "Sir, your subject disturbs me, it keeps me awake at night". Of course, one would not give the obvious retort, and I did not; one did not want to humiliate the man. I said, "Come round and see us", and we did things together. Then he produced difficulties in other subjects, and most of the difficulties were what Lord Maybray-King is talking about, but I used the word "articulate".
I think men are human beings, they want to express themselves in a variety of ways. Some will not read, but they are very good with their legs, or they can punch like nothing on earth, or they can shoot. I have taught people up to Bisley standards. After all, I belong to a regiment one of the battalions of which won the Army championship every year between the wars. Teaching people to shoot is a marvellous education in articulation and the use of language. Therefore, I am not a specialist on reading. And, of course, I have taught people in Africa; I have taught people who were not only illiterate but who would remain illiterate all their lives; but there are many things one can teach them, and what highly intelligent people some of them are.
I have been boasting about my capacity to learn about people by making the effort, but I started by saying I had no natural talent. I am going on to say that I go to see what others do. For instance, I went to present the prizes at a school in Bermondsey where I used to run a club just before the Second World War. I asked the headmistress, "You have got about 600. Do you know the names of everybody?" "Yes, of course", she said, "a lot more than that. I have to know not only the names of the children. I have to know their fathers and their mothers and I have to know their homes". I said, "Why do you have to know all this?" She said, "The powers that be have prescribed that the 11-plus must go, and, of course, we have to distinguish in some other way. Here is a

917
colossal form I have to fill in which requires an immense amount of know-ledge that no married teacher could possibly acquire. I have to say which are suitable for the 'A' stream and the 'B' stream". That was the language used; I do not know whether it still is used.
The headmistress said, "I have to go to see them at home. If the television is never turned off, I cannot put them into the 'A' stream, whatever their talents, because they will never do any homework. If they are banished to a bedroom or provided with a bedroom without heating, then I cannot put them in the 'A' stream. I have to know everything. "She was controlling a school of 600. She said, "I do not think an ordinary married teacher with the ties of life, the shopping and everything else, could do this. I can, but I can only just do it. If the numbers go up to 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, how on earth can anybody do it, no matter what efforts they make". I want to emphasise knowing the children; I hear of teachers who do not know a single name. I can find out by asking the children, "Does he know you?" When the teacher knows them they say, "Yes, he knows everybody". If you do not know people, how can you teach your sheep, how can you control?
There is one other remark I want to make. As a farmer, as a teacher, I notice the inherent flaw in nature. We read about the balance of nature, natural selection, the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest. Almost all that is true except the last conclusion. If nature has its way the survival of the un-fittest is what happens, in agriculture, docks, nettles, thistles, brambles, every other kind of thing. No garden ever prospered or produced a crop unless there was a gardener. Natural selection is a recipe for world starvation. The same tendencies exist in human nature, and this is a deeply ingrained flaw; the propensity to retrogress is very deep and it has to be controlled. When the creature is young it requires discipline. I think it is a mistake to have the discipline by itself. One must have it in everything that is done, in the subjects, whether it is rifle-shooting, squash racquets, rugby football, soccer, hockey, gymnastics, drill: in teaching anything there is a discipline. In all that, the man who has the command of language—whether it is
918
English, Scots or pigeon-Swahili, which I used to use—conveys ideas; they learn and grow with you. My Lords, I have spoken too much.
5.28 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he has spoken too much. I do not think I shall be accused of speaking too little if I try to confine the few remarks I want to make to a very few minutes. I had intended, when I put my name down, to make a few remarks about the three Rs in case nobody else did. So many of those remarks have been made so much better that I will confine what I say to the three Ms, which to me are at the moment more interesting. I have not often been at a debate when one has had the privilege of congratulating three maiden speakers who have made three maiden speeches, each of which would have made a debate in itself, and with every word of each one I never disa-greed, though I tried hard. It is a truism to say that in your Lordships' House there is always somebody who can intro-duce a subject probably better than could be done anywhere else.
I thought before coming here tonight, and I still thought after hearing his admirable opening speech, that there was nobody so well suited to speak on this subject than the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. But having heard these three maiden speeches I am not quite so sure. I do not want to say much about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill; it would be impertinent of me. He was a chief education officer. I have never been anything in education except a very amateur private. I have occasionally been asked to teach children who were backward in reading, and I can quote the case of two very intelligent boys who could not read at the age of eight. As has emerged from this debate, one has to use quite different methods with different people. I was asked to take one of the boys, who happened to be my sister's son, for reading for five minutes every day in the summer holidays. The first day I took him for five minutes with a book which I thought he would enjoy. He got me into conversation for four minutes and had only one minute of reading. The second day I produced a stop watch and pointed out that it would

919
be five minutes of reading. By the end of a quarter of an hour he was rather bored but had done his five minutes' reading. By the third day he was sufficiently interested in the book to spend the rest of the holidays reading comics and various other things practically without stopping. That was a very easy case of trying a little elementary discipline. Clearly, if one did not have the privilege of having one boy alone one would have had to go much further than that.
The other boy probably suffered from what has been referred to as the "mirror image". He could not distinguish clearly which way "p" was written. There again it was much easier, being alone with somebody to find some method, with or without the use of mirrors, by moving things to different parts of the room. It may have been by accident, but by the end of the holidays he could read easily and has not suffered since. I am not suggesting that these were methods which could be used in a school of 1,000 people or even in a class of 20, but it demonstrated what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was saying, that this is un-charted territory and each child has to be treated differently.
I know of a school in Hampshire which is run privately by somebody who has no paper qualifications. She started it after the war entirely on her own and had a number of pupils who had been given up in reading anywhere else. They were children of all classes and all ranges of intelligence. A well known girls' school, the Godolphin School in Salisbury, said that no children had been better taught. I do not know the secret except that she could teach remarkably well and above all was devoted to children and took a great interest in them.
Coming to the second maiden speech, I hope that nobody in this House will be offended if I say that I have never heard a maiden speech which moved me quite so much as that of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, who was talking about his son. He mentioned the matter of illiteracy in the modern world as opposed to illiteracy in the days of Homer (who I suppose was illiterate) or in the Middle Ages when one had to be a clerk in a very special class to be literate. As he said, illiteracy nowadays is regarded as a stigma of
920
shame. A child who cannot read feels that he is despised and rejected. The noble Lord made that very clear in his speech. Without wanting to be sentimental, I do not know whether he is a musician and whether he knows the aria in "The Messiah" about another Son who "was despised and rejected", and the fact that Handel, who knew what he was doing, put that sentence into a major key. The noble Lord in his speech made the same point, also in a major key— he made this sound a subject of hope. But although it can be done and will be done do not let us fool ourselves into thinking that it can be done easily. The third maiden speech was so authoritative on the subject of dyslectics, which is clearly going to be a growing problem to which we do not yet know the answer, that I will not say anything except that I shall read it with immense care. I hope that all three maiden speakers today will speak as often as I come to this House.
My Lords, at this stage of the evening I cannot say anything very useful about the subject of literacy except that I agree that it is important. I believe that, like everything else that is important, it is also dangerous—like electricity or fire or any-thing to which we are all accustomed and cannot do without. It is something that we have to be very careful about. Several noble Lords have hinted that possibly the importance that we attach to literacy as opposed to intelligence and some other things is slightly exaggerated. Literature and literacy mean looking at a thing and hearing a thing. Homer, as I said, was probably illiterate, but people had wonderful memories in those days, just as children who cannot read may remember sounds better than children who can. Equally, children who cannot read may remember sights. But the difficulty with literacy is that "words" have to be looked at and also heard, and there is the triple problem of putting all three together.
I know very little about the initial spelling method which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, but I agree that spelling in England is a very difficult problem. If you have to explain to a foreigner, "We shall plough through the trough of despond however tough the going" and explain that "through" and "trough" and "plough" all look the same but sound different, he will end by

921
saying, "Enough said", and no more on that matter. I think it would be a great pity if, as Bernard Shaw wanted, the whole of English spelling were reformed simply on scientific grounds; because there is something in looking at words which helps one to see the history in them. If one takes the word "encourage", one can see the word "cour" for "heart" in the middle of it. If it was spelt "inkurrij" it would become a different word whether one likes it or not. However, I think this half-way house of introducing an alphabet which is partly phonetic, leading one on to the old spelling, is probably an excellent one. There is this danger in literature of people believing that because they can read and write they can understand; because of course, much the most important thing is to be able to under-stand words as well as hearing and seeing them.
I have spoken much longer than I meant to. I do not want to be discouraging. I remember a Bishop in former years who was asked by his wife at breakfast on a rather busy day what he thought about sin, and his answer was, "I'm against it". If I were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, what I think about literacy, I would say, "I am for it."
5.39 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, the subject of this debate is the importance of literacy, and I have anticipated that much would be said about its benefits. Be these as they may, I should like to concentrate on the dangers of literacy in the shape of its inevitable consequence of higher and further education, which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, who introduced the debate, termed "higher literacy". The point here, which was slightly touched upon a moment ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, who so wisely hinted that education could be slightly different from understanding, seems to me to be: once further educated do we think any better or any worse than if we scarcely read at all? For my own part, being not so much a reader of books as an observer of life, it seems to me that much further education can anaesthetise many of our better minds and destroy much of our capacity to think at all.
I am not facetious when I declare that it is my sincere opinion that the kind of people who best keep their wits about
922
them are often those of little literacy or further education. A man in the pub put the matter to me very well the other day, when he said:
"When a miner reads a book he does not believe what it says. Any ass can see that the miner is right and the book is wrong."
Among other such wise people on whom books or further education have had little effect, I remember the Irish lady who cooks my breakfast, a devout Catholic who scarcely reads the newspapers or, if she does, does not believe what they say. Other women with whom I have chatted behind shop counters, members of the regiment with whom I played polo in India—all excellent people—have a better idea of how to think than many of the dons at our redbrick universities.
As to the other kinds of thinking derived from books and too much education, much of this springs from the French philosophes who created the French Revolution and much of the Left-Wing thinking that has existed since then; a style of thinking which, given the chance, would subvert the basis of heredity within the House itself. A notable exponent of this kind of thinking was Voltaire who, in his novel Candide—a poor attempt to show that the omnipotent Deity is not kind—had to resort to the dishonest technique of packing his cards. Voltaire filled his novel with a series of events which succeeded one another with a rapidity which no sensible person could suppose would ever happen in the ordinary course of life. All sensible people also know perfectly well that such a presentation of events simply will not do.
I have noted in Who's Who that the noble Lord who introduced the debate has published some selections from Macaulay, much of whose thinking was derived from the French philosophes and projected by the same dishonest technique as Voltaire used of packing in his cards. It is in this way that we get so much wrong information in Macaulay's, History of England. For instance, there is the implication that the squire in the reign of Charles II, because he was a Tory in his politics and therefore averse to progress, was an ignorant being; or that as England became richer it became a better place in which to live. As to the purely political lies of Macaulay, I should like to refer to Leopold von Ranke's, History of England principally in the 17th Century, written especially to rebut

923
Macaulay's point of view. As for the dishonesty of the whole of Macaulay's approach in every way, I should like to refer to the controversy in the Edinburgh Review in about 1830 between Macaulay and Michael Thomas Sadler, then a Member in another place, who had more honesty and certainly more sense than Macaulay ever had.
The Liberals of the last century promoted this fraudulent style of thinking of Macaulay and Voltaire, giving to it the name "education", which they said was necessary for all citizens who would have the responsibility of the vote and all citizens should have votes. In consequence, we have had more false thinking —that is to say, education—promoted in the London School of Economics by poisonous influences abroad, until many people are saying, "We have had too much education and the time has come when we ought to go back to the fundamentals"; and the most fundamental aspect of our lives is our social relation-ships with which politics should be principally concerned.
I should like to demonstrate how, in the twin areas of our social relationships and politics—which should depend on them—we have been led astray by so much false thinking in books and newspapers which a literate electorate has been trained to read. At the risk, I am afraid a grave one, of being too tedious and of going on too long, I should like to draw up a random list of fourteen different words and phrases which seem to me to indicate the chief areas of deceptive thinking in books and newspapers which I might criticise.
No. 1, "controversial" or "provocative" are used as adjectives to condemn an idea or suggestion without sufficient reason. If I drive a Minister too hard on some point over which in advance he has made up his mind not to give way, he dives under cover by saying that my suggestion is too controversial. No. 2, "democracy", indicates a dynastic conviction of the virtue of majority rule. What then can be wrong with Royal dynasties? I can speak so of democracy, because as an hereditary Peer I owe my position to the fact that we are blessed still with a mixed Constitution which combines hereditary just as much as elected elements.
924
No. 3, "equality", may exist in the sight of God but down here on earth it cannot do so, even between spouses, the truth being that in physique and intelligence we are not equal, nor can we be so in terms of our social relationships, determined as these are by mutual dependence in which one Party exercises authority over the other, and yet in the exercise of that authority serves the other party, as Kings used to be the servants of their own people.
Related to the fallacy of equality is the fallacy of meritocracy, which I have been told is an organisation of society which comes into being through neighbours existing in a state of equality, so that rather than co-operate in the spirit of mutual dependence which I have already defined they can compete with one another. If for a moment I can leave aside the economic consideration that efficiency may be promoted by such com-petition, I should like to put forward the human equation that once one English-man competes against his neighbour, which Englishman knows who is his neighbour whom he can trust and with whom he can co-operate?
The fallacy of equality may be linked to another Liberal fraud, that of fraternity. I should like to consider the conjunction in connection with charity defined by my kinsman, Sir Robert Atkyns, author in the reign of Queen Anne of the definitive history of my ancestral county of Gloucester, as the life of religion, the true visible Church, the duty of mankind, the essential quality of a minister without which all his other qualities are dross. Charity among neighbours is something about which Liberals are quite blind, given as they are to Calvin's notion that a man who cannot work shall not eat, and on that account put into its place the fraudulent substitute of fraternity among neighbours —fraudulent, I say, because in the same breath Liberals declare that any two neighbours are not dependent upon one another as any man must be who under-takes to be his own brother's keeper. Liberals adjudicate instead that as equals neighbours must compete with one another.
No. 4 "everyone is entitled to his own opinion". The derivation of this remark, which has become jargon at cocktail

925
parties, from Rousseau's "Social Contract" is clear. It is a formula produced to avoid a row. Between spouses who enjoy the most essential of social ties, because they are wholly committed to one another, but rows cannot be avoided and it may be said of such rows that their very existence denotes commitment, but it is not appreciated by the competitive middle-class now going under that we are all committed to one another. Therefore, it is emphatically not true to say that everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
In connection with the fallacy that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I should like to mention the myth of impartiality, notably implied in the BBC Charter and more aptly conveyed in the letter columns of The Times than in those of the Daily Telegraph. If I asked any man to define "impartiality", it would be impossible for him to do so. Like the authors of the letters to the Daily Telegraph, we are all partis pris and so depend not upon ourselves— because, as I have just said, we are not entitled to our own opinion; we depend instead on our relationships to other people. In connection with the fallacy that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I should also like to mention another fallacy, occasionally invoked by the Left-Wing intelligentsia in aid of its own cause, that of world opinion, for the phrase "world opinion" begs the question: who has his own personal opinion which he has the arrogance and, I suspect, the dishonesty to presume is that of the entire world?
No. 5, "Facts". Facts are merely the cards which Voltaire and Macaulay used to pack their books with. Both authors knew that the point of facts is merely the attitude which one chooses to take towards them, and that everything depends on how they are arranged. Politicians can pull the wool over our eyes by quoting facts as if they possess some inherent value. Over a glass of sherry the other day in the St. James's Club, a Member of the other place told me that the economic fact of the matter is that men will not work unless the threat of unemployment is exercised over them. The better truth of the matter is that we are all concerned to look after our own families and, if this is impossible, we are entitled to ask, what is the point of the economy?
926
No. 6, "Intelligent". This is used as an adjective to sanctify an idea: it does not imply that the idea is sensible. Many intellectuals are people of no common sense. They are often very stupid.
No. 7, "Liberal". This is usually taken to mean "with good intent", whereas it more often means" with false or insufficient intent". The good intent may be false because of the traditional alliance of liberal philosophy with the selfish motivation of moneymaking; or insufficient, because the liberal values denote a code of morality unsupported by religion and no morality can survive or flourish unless it is supported by religion.
No. 8, "Liberty". This is taken to mean that we can dispense with some of the rules, whereas we all know that freedom can exist only within them. No. 9, "Making your way". This is a current phrase implying that, in one's determination to get on, one is entitled to damage society as a taker, compared with a hereditary Peer who gives service in its most traditional form. If a woman made her own way as a married woman or a prostitute, Hollywood would say she was a flyer.
No. 10, "Power". The word is used in books and newspapers to denote something evil. It led Lord Acton to declare, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." However, if that dictum were true, where could the power of good lie? It may be objected that Lord Acton was thinking only in terms of politics. But De Tocqueville declared in the Ancien Régime that no State can hold together without religion. Therefore, no politician can talk about power without considering its religious connotations. Once religion is brought in, power ceases to be a dirty word and becomes a clean one.
No. 11, "Progress". This means that if we change the laws and institutions under which we live we shall get a better society. This ignores the teaching of the Church, flatly denied by Locke, that we are all creatures of original sin, and that therefore the sin which we have all inherited is something which no legislator can eradicate. For the sake of the fallacy of progress, anything like a House

927
of Lords of hereditary Peers, evolved, historically speaking, on a prescriptive basis, is written off as an anachronism. The reversal of such a prescriptive basis of things—which is the only way, as the best answers are reached by practice— is called in aid for the sake of change. Change is something which, for entirely doctrinaire reasons best known to themselves—and certainly unknown to others —the Socialist intelligentsia likes to look upon as good in itself. Such change is carried out in the name of improvement, but the word "improvement" is merely a label stamped on political change to give it political justification. Harold Macmillan once said with some flippancy: "It is surprising how the most progressive countries are the most retrogressive."
No. 12, "Racial prejudice". This is a beautiful twister, prejudice merely being a pejorative term for strong feelings. If it is wrong to mix two races together because they are incompatible, then the feeling against carrying out any such experiment is entirely justified. No. 13, "Rational". This implies a sense of responsibility to reason. Why, like the French Revolutionaries, should we make a deity out of reason when it is the Almighty we should believe in?
Lastly, No. 14, "Rights". These are regarded by everyone as something to cherish and take care of, not only in relation to property—noble Lords opposite would have enough to say about absolute rights in property—but also in such quite elusive abstractions as happiness. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, once wanted to introduce a debate in your Lordships' House on this subject but was told, "Happiness is not a Government responsibility". Though happiness may be an elusive bird, many people like to think of it as a private right which they claim for themselves, but we were not born always to be happy. We should forget about rights appertaining just to ourselves, and concern ourselves with the duties and obligations out of which the whole of society is constructed.
My Lords, the list that I have drawn up is spasmodic and, I know, far too long, but I should like to close simply with the following observation. Literacy has created the existence of many students
928
who have further education at their red-brick universities, and it is sad that the youth of England should in this way have become brainwashed by so much twisted thinking. Of the students, many of the men should be sent into the Army and the women ought to get married.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord remarked that charity was a quality that Liberals were blind to. May I say how heartily I agree with his use of a preposition at the end of a sentence—a practice I was always told was illiterate? He is entirely right to use it. There are excellent examples, such as
"The heartaches, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to",
and,
"Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?"
and there are many others. I agree with the noble Lord's grammar, but not always with his sentiments.
5.58 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I shall not follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, in introducing matters which are quite apart from the subject we are discussing All I would say about the noble Lord is that he appears to think that the evils which he complains of in this world are due to literacy, but, if people were unable to read, would they be any wiser if their only sources of information were the television and the radio? It might be a worse predicament.
My Lords, we have been discussing literacy and it is very important, because this is the accumulation of knowledge from all the centuries which is put at our disposal by the written and printed word. Learning to read and write—and to speak grammatically and logically—are arts which have to be acquired by diligence and application, and I venture to think that in recent times this has not been observed. Many years ago, I was familiar with education in Scotland and at that time (in the early years of this century) there was no child who came from the infant school into the elementary school who was not able to read and write—apart, of course, from the children who were mentally defective and who required to be in special schools.
At that time, the ordinary child in Scotland came into the elementary school

929
from the infant school with a command of reading and writing that accorded with the ability that one would possess at that age. This was accomplished under a system in which the classes were two or three times as large as they are at the present time. It no doubt involved a great deal of effort on the part of the teachers, but it was done then and it ought to be done at the present time. We have been getting into the habit of assuming that learning to read and write is something which can be picked up almost accidentally without application on the part either of the teacher or the pupil. We have also been adopting a system, strange to say, of teaching the art of reading by means of what is called the "look and say" method in which the child is asked to look at a word and pronounce it without being taught how it is composed and what are the sounds of the various letters. In other words, we have been teaching the art of reading English. English is, after all, a phonetic language despite its eccentricities; we have been teaching it as if it was Chinese, in which people learn to recognise symbols.
It is no wonder that there have been a great many children who have not been able to read and to write properly. A teacher whom I know went into a school some years ago, examined the books of the children, and found that they had never been corrected. One child had 50 mistakes upon a page, which no doubt he went on repeating time after time. It is an abuse of the art of teaching, and more discipline and more application is required if reading is to be taught; it must be taught in conjunction with writing and speaking because the three things go together, and one reinforces the other.
6.1 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for introducing a subject of such great importance and so fundamental to the progress of this country. He apologised at the outset if his remarks were too narrow, but in fact he covered Asia and South America, and he also brought his remarks home. Like him, I regret the fact that the Bullock Report is not available. Certainly the printers' strike has had something to do with it but, as an ex-pupil of the Chairman of that Committee, I can say that the
930
immense reading list which he will have given to his fellow members will also have been a contributory factor.
Before I turn to the body of what I have to say, I should like to give my most sincere, and not merely my formal, congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, on their constructive, lucid and most elegantly and soundly presented maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, reminded us that the three As are no substitute for the three Rs, and I endorse this. He said that the need for structured teaching persists, and this I shall dilate upon, and he wisely advised us to avoid the dangers of the centralisation of power of direction in our educational system.
The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in moving speeches, joined what developed throughout the debate into what I might almost call the dyslexia lobby. It is a notable development that so many of your Lordships should have such close connection with people who have recently been diagnosed as suffering from what until recently was not a recognised disease or condition at all. I should like to emphasise what they have said later on in what I have to say.
May I now return to the beginning of our theme, which is the theme of literacy, and its opposite, illiteracy. It is accepted, and I will not now produce the statistics which I had prepared in case this was in question, that two to three million adult illiterates exist in Britain at this moment, and this was acknowledged by the Minister in another place in Hansard on 27th January. The implications of this are alarming for a number of reasons. Let us look at it from the personal point of view first of all. I do not think that even I, who practised as a teacher for some time, had realised the shock or the difference between literacy and illiteracy until I found myself in the Northern Province of Thailand, totally unable to read anything in view—unable to distinguish a bus stop from a public house, as it were, with the additional difficulty of not speaking the local language.
This is not quite so extreme for those who have the beginnings of reading and

931
speak our language; but none the less those who are "functionally illiterate" —to use a UNESCO term, which has changed its definition, I think, over the last few years, but is broadly said to mean having a reading age below that of an average 13 year old; and in the case of the British Association of Settlements Survey actually a nine-year old base was used—have closed to them all clerical careers and virtually every sedentary occupation. Those on the lower range find a promotion bar within their careers even in not very ambitious channels of employment. For some, invoices, labels, delivery notes, envelopes, street names, maps, timetables, instruction manuals—one could go on forever— are inscrutable, or can only be translated, rather than read, with infinite pains.
This affects of course national productivity as well as the careers of the individuals concerned. But there are effects also of another nature, and in the British Association of Settlements' publication A Right to Read, which one or two noble Lords have referred to already, the FORCAST system of judging age range, which is a test, I understand, used in the United States Army—though I have been unable to validate its accuracy, it is widely accepted—was applied to a number of documents and publications. The first was the label on a potentially dangerous bottle of household cleanser and it was discovered that the instructions for use, the caution about its dangers to children, and the instructions on what to do if children drank it, needed a reading age of over 16 years to be understood. That means that the instructions would have been unintelligible, presumably, to an admitted two or three million of our adult, and presumably in some cases, parent population. This is a matter for some alarm.
My Lords, a more extreme example, referred to briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who exhibited such an extreme literacy himself as to be able to say, "e.g.—I mean i.e."— which, I think, must be an all-time high— was the Department of Health and Social Security leaflet Family Income Supplement No. 1, on claiming the supplement. The bit of that which told you how to claim the money, as he rightly observed, required you to be 17 years old, whereas
932
to read an article on the front page of The Times requires only an age of 14 years. I submit in all seriousness, although this may be an amusing example, that the first positive action to result from this debate ought to be a a careful scrutiny by every Department— and especially the Department of Health and Social Security, which is in closest contact with the disadvantaged and therefore usually, by inference, the least literate in many cases—of every document, pamphlet and publication addressed to the general public. When they have been scrutinised and assessed for comprehensibility they should, where necessary, be rewritten. That instructions to those in need on how to obtain help should be much more difficult to understand—three years more difficult to understand—than material published on the front page of The Times is, in my view, utterly absurd.
It is a symptom of the degradation of the English language about which I should like to dilate at length, but upon which I shall dilate only briefly. We have creeping into our systems, administrative and educative, a degradation of the English language which started with jargon (jargon which was rightly assaulted by Quiller-Couch in manuals which our civil servants seem, most regrettably, to have abandoned); a species of specialist language bred by ignorance out of conceit. Jargon is the series of platforms upon which those with modest specialist skills seek to elevate themselves above those without them, and is fabricated out of unnecessarily long words into unnecessarily long sentences. Jargon says, "The vehicular circulation has been severely restricted throughout the metropolis during the past 12 hours", where English says; "London is one big traffic jam today". Both sentences mean the same thing. The function of both sentences is to communicate, but only one of those does it to the fullest extent.
My Lords, reading backwardness in schools, which is what in fact prevents many people reading the forms about which I complain, has been the subject of much interesting research—particularly the National Child Development Study Report. There are in fact two of them— the first and second reports on the 1958

933
Cohort. This endorses the method used by Dr. Morris—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, referred—in another work relating the stage of progress in a child's reading to the volume of the reading primer in use. It is a simple rule of thumb, but not to be cast lightly aside. It is endorsed by those with great authority. The general rule is that if the child is on Book 2 or Book 3, it still needs a considerable amount of expert help and individual supervision and encouragement. From Book 4 onwards, the child is, to some extent, if given sufficient encouragement and suitable material, self-advancing—but, obviously, not entirely so.
Of a sample of 10,596 boys and girls, apparently without statistical bias, 471 per cent. were on Book 3 or below on the eve of their transfer from infant to junior school. In addition, the Report states, 10 per cent. of seven year olds in the final term of infant school had barely made a start with reading; that is, one in 10. The Report continues:
"It follows, given the present age of transfer, that teachers in charge of first-year junior classes should have a thorough knowledge of methods of teaching reading."
The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, gave us the figure for those in secondary schools who needed further teaching and reading as well.
If I may quote also from the Report on the 1968 Literacy Survey, Summary Interim Results of the Study of Pupils' Reading Standards; Proposals for Further Action, of the Inner London Education Authority, it says, in part, that
"… it emerges that in 68 per cent. (that is three out of five) of all junior schools and sections there are neither full-time nor part-time teachers who have been specifically trained to teach reading."
This is in talking about the primary sector. I will not plunge the House into a sea of statistics; but it must be accepted that, if there is a 10 per cent. rate of infants hardly making a start on reading when they join their infant schools, if we have the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has given at the entry to the secondary sector, if we have 2 million to 3 million adult illiterates in our population after that, there must be a considerable if dwindling proportion of backward readers throughout the educational system, infant, junior, middle and secondary and even, perhaps, into the
934
sixth form colleges in a rather more specialist band.
It follows, therefore, that we must do something about remedying the situation. On the 21st November last year, I had occasion to ask the Government in a question supplementary to a Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, whether they were satisfied with the apparent total lack of an accepted standard of training (or, apparently, of any requirement by ATOs) that students receiving teacher training certificates should be adequately trained to teach reading. I suggested— and I repeat this suggestion in the strongest possible terms—that all teachers should be trained to identify pupils with specific reading difficulties. The importance of this has been underscored again and again in this debate by speakers with personal experience of the difficulties, of the isolation, the loneliness and the bafflement which surround first the child and then the parent who cannot go for diagnosis and advice. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will take this as a message from the whole House that this is something that must be done.
I submit with equal emphasis that students who are training—for the whole and not simply the infant departments of primary sectors—should not be certificated as proficient if not both trained and competent to teach children to read and write, not by a couple of lectures in minority time but, effectively, thoroughly and with proven success. This will resolve the problem of the supply of properly-trained new teachers in time; but it will not resolve the problem of teachers who are now practising, but not adequately trained. I would endorse appeals to Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost to implement the existing recommendations for increasing in-service training as quickly as possible, and to give priority to this sphere in precedence before others. To reinforce what I have said, the ILEA Report, while saying that it cannot precisely state the number, concludes that:
"… the proportion of full-time teachers trained to teach reading [in their area] is less than 1:8."
That starkly surprising statement must speak for itself.
Of other contributory factors, a major one is the lack of teaching continuity.

935
The value of knowing a child has been most eloquently and amusingly put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I can emphasise it only in a more pedestrian way. In the ILEA—and this is not a problem peculiar to them and I do not wish to be thought to be shooting at a particular area; there are other examples—of schools with one to four classes in 1967-68, over half had one to two teachers leaving. If one relates the two figures, that is a very large pro-portion of the staff. In fact, 14·8 per cent. (about one-seventh) had three or more leaving. In schools with one to four classes that means three-quarters of, or possibly all, the staff in some unfortunate schools. In schools of nine or more classes, 62·5 per cent. had three or more teachers leaving. I do not doubt that there are later figures; and I hope that we may be reassured by them.
This is not just a London problem; it is one associated with the great conurbations. I quote:
"One-half of the West Riding teachers had been there for five years or longer [in the schools in which they are teaching] but only one-quarter of those in Deptford or Birming-ham."
This is shown in EPA Problems and Policies Report published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1972. Why is it that the teachers are leaving? And why, as they leave by the door are the truants leaving over the wall? Or simply staying away? An ILEA survey carried out in 1971 estimated that about 6,000 secondary pupils (or 3 per cent. of the secondary school population) were away for "unauthorised or unknown reasons" at any one time.
My Lords, something is very wrong when both the teachers and the children are so unhappy to be in the schools that they get out of them in such numbers so fast without learning to read. This is not just a London problem. The Secretary of the National Association of Chief Welfare Officers, quoted in a recent publication, estimated that early in 1973, 420,000 children might be truant at any one time throughout the country. The Kingston-upon-Hull Head Teachers' Association Survey in 1971–72, "revealed a 13·6 per cent. absentee rate for children aged 13–16"—
and concluded—
"that well over half the absences were avoidable."
936
The contributory factors to truancy have been pointed out correctly as boredom, and disruption springing from indiscipline. Size in a school, beyond a certain point, militates against efficiency. It may produce admirable resources for a sixth form and inexhaustible combinations of subjects in CSE, "O" and "A" level courses; but it also produces anonymity. Most teachers do not have the enormous capacity for identification that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has revealed. I intend after this debate to go to him for tuition in the manner of memorising names and places.
These schools may produce this variety of choices but they are also of a size to produce anonymity. Some 60 per cent. of school children do not take the CSE or "O" or "A" level courses at all. They do not get the sixth form advantages. They do not get the advantages of a wide choice of subjects. What they do get very often is anonymity. I have taught in a large school, not one of these great "crowd factories", as I call them, but a very big school. I had 302 children to deal with every seven days. I found that I recognised those who were very clever and very naughty or very stupid. Of the rest, all I could cope with administratively were the exercise books at night. I could meet them in the corridor and recognise the outstanding ones; the others I would not recognise. If they were going off to the "gym" or behind the lavatories for a smoke or down to the town to look at the shops, I would not know. I did not know them as individuals. Those who are anonymous are difficult to control, and difficult to account for—and what is more, it is impossible to accord to them the fundamental ingredient of a happy childhood and a secure adolescence (and this is terribly important): affectionate concern. What we want are schools for individuals, not factories for crowds.
My Lords, I will not go on about truancy. It is a major factor. I will say simply that it is made much easier not only because of the size of the institutions but also because of split sites and large catchment areas, where the individual truant will not be recognised by the local population. Incidentally, with the abandonment of school uniforms—which

937
is a red herring I do not want to raise— identification of the truant is more difficult as well.
This is the last thing I want to say. It is a cruel fact which must not be over-looked. Where the discipline situation is critical, or has broken down or is thought to be about to break down, there are some absences of trouble-makers that are actually welcomed, and teachers do not bother to find out if there is laryngitis or measles in the family because they get the others taught better. I will pass briefly over that and revert to staff departures, because this is the other half of lack of continuity. The Report, Educational Priority, E.P.A. Problems and Policies, to which I have earlier referred, revealed in a survey that of the teachers questioned a majority, in some cases a large majority, (teachers in the E.P.A., of course) thought that their friends of the same age, with the same qualifications, in other occupations had more social prestige, more social stimulation, worked in a better neighbourhood under better physical conditions and under less pressure of work, for better pay throughout their careers. Significantly, 59 per cent. reckoned that teaching gave them more job satisfaction than the people they were comparing themselves with. In those circumstances, 59 per cent. when they see other people working in preferable conditions is a very small percentage for, in other words, 41 per cent. of the people who felt themselves to be occupationally disadvantaged also felt that they were not getting any satisfaction out of their job. It therefore gives me great pleasure to welcome the implications of the Houghton Report, which will put right at least one of the crudest dissatisfactions.
I must now congratulate, from the depths of my being, those who remain in the schools, in the difficult areas; who have stuck to their guns year by year. These are heroes, allowing themselves to be worn away in a vast expenditure of spirit on behalf of and in the service of thousands of children who perhaps only later in life, but more probably never, will recognise that it was on their shoulders that they stepped out into the world.
I think I have said enough to show that I do not single the ILEA out as a special target, and I will therefore pass over further statistics. I would, however, refer
938
to one which is revealed in the ILEA 203 Literacy Survey 1971 follow-up, which I imagine the noble Lord is familiar with. I shall refer to an abridged extract from it. In 1968 the poor readers were "at least two years behind" the mean and in 1971, much later, they were "at least two years six months behind" the national mean. So we are not looking at a static situation but at a deteriorating situation. That there is considerable weakness in the teaching of reading in schools is I think now proven. It is a part, and a measurable part, of the shortcomings of our present educational system. Since it is measureable, let it be measured. We ought to know, year by year, whether we are giving our rising generation more literacy or less.
The fashionable fear of examinations and tests is, I believe, on the wane. I am not speaking of selection; I am speaking of assessment. We test the weight of our children's bodies to guard against malnutrition. Why should we not test their classroom attainments to guard against maleducation not for selection, but to monitor the progress and the service they are receiving? Literarcy is the principal learning tool of the modern child. Numeracy is another. If we deny them to children at the outset we starve them as surely as we starve their bodies if we do not give them food. It is increasingly hard to make up ground lost as the years roll by. Progress must be assessed and it must be set against a standard from which both the school and the individual teacher can see whether they are doing the job right. It is perverse, just because we do not accept payment by results, to ignore results altogether.
So, my Lords, if we are to stop producing more and more adult illiterates we must take certain steps now and certain steps as soon as possible. These are: First, to see that students training to teach in all sectors of the maintained system are taught to identify those in need of specialist help in reading and writing, and in other areas of education as well. Secondly, to specify that no student is qualified to teach in primary or lower middle schools who has not been successfully trained to teach reading and writing. Thirdly, to provide, from the earliest possible date, in-service training in teaching of reading for those now

939
teaching in primary and lower middle schools who have not already received such training.
The only acceptable delay in these three provisions will be any that may prove necessary in order to implement the recommendations of the Bullock Committee as they relate to the content of courses. Fourthly, in the educational priority areas the local education authorities must aim much of their effort at making the job of teaching in them an agreeable, fulfilling and respected career. This must eventually mean reduced class sizes, better pupil-teacher ratios and more support from general educational welfare officers. Ideally, this means an end to split site and over-large schools, certainly an end to creating them, as well. When teachers again enjoy teaching then we shall not be far from the day when children enjoy being taught by them. Fifthly, we should introduce assessable standards of attainment in reading, as in other skills, not as a means of selection but as a means of diagnosis of our own success or failure in giving literacy to children, the basic means of furthering both their education and their future careers. If we take those steps we will slow down the production of adult illiterates, but what about those who already exist? I shall refer to this very briefly, but I expect the noble Lord who replies will cover this ground.
May I welcome the allocation of £1 million, referred to by both the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Incidentally, for non-recurring charges I understand that all expenditure for the coming year will be administered by the National Institute of Adult Education. I would say that if this is, as I suspect it will be, a successful scheme, then in the light of the experience gained thereby a ten-year scheme should be built on the basis of the lesson learnt. The tapering of demand at the end, if it is successful, will be largely, I hope, absorbed by the needs of the existing immigrant community and recruits thereto. They, in their need for help with literacy in a foreign language will take up much of the time.
The adult illiterate is in an acutely embarrassing condition—it is analogous to that of alcoholics anonymous. Some
940
of them carry about a pair of broken spectacles as an excuse for asking somebody to read a signpost or a timetable because of this predicament. This large number is as yet unmeasured and un-measurable. I give a very warm welcome to the three-year series of programmes being launched on radio and TV by the BBC next October. This will reach the adult illiterates, without their having the embarrassment of coming forward, and convince them that help is available. Lord Beaumont of Whitley's interesting idea of the availability of video-cassettes in local centres deserves to be pursued, although it would have to come out of the existing £1 million because the Governments are not empowered to pay money direct to the BBC.
So let us have a conclusion to this over-long speech. I ask Her Majesty's Government to look favourably on the five recommendations I have made on the teaching of reading in schools, to overhaul, up-date and strengthen the training of remedial teachers, especially for dyslexia and also in the guidance of parents of dyslectics. I would ask them to institute a campaign in all Government Departments for the use of simpler— which usually means better—English and, if their experimental disbursement of the £1 million to which I have referred is successful, to make that an important permanent feature of the remedial education scene in this country.
6.30 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, first of all let me say how grateful we are on this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for initiating this extremely important debate. In a characteristic speech of great power and restraint he led us over all the problems and difficulties that we face in this fundamental question of literacy, and throughout it was illuminated with the practical idealism borne of his great experience in educational questions. The same wise characteristics marked the most distinguished maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. It would be presumptuous of me to congratulate the noble Lord, but I want to say how much I admired what he said and the way he said it. I am sure we have all learned a great deal, too, from

941
the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, concentrating as he did on the distressing and difficult problems of dyslexia. This of course was the theme of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in yet another formidable and expert maiden speech.
There is no denying the importance of literacy. At the basic functional level we need to be able to operate efficiently and effectively. We need to be able to read the label on the medicine bottle, and the forms which plague us all, including the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and he criticised the forms particularly from the Department of Health and Social Security. We need to be able to follow safety instructions at work and to communicate with one another in an increasingly complex society. At a rather different level, we need access to literature for personal enjoyment and to enrich our lives.
But whether it is literacy for work or pleasure and entertainment, certainly we need it. Here I completely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, in his controversial theme—I use the word "controversial" advisedly because it is one of the disallowed words —about the dangers of literacy. Perhaps I am not entitled to my own opinion on this because apparently none of us is entitled to our own opinion on this or, indeed, on anything. I do not accept anything that the noble Lord said on the subject and I feel sure that noble friends on both sides of the House would also repudiate and would not accept what he said.
I come next to the question that has been raised in the debate about the falling standards, or whether standards are falling so far as literacy is concerned. Measurement here is notoriously difficult. In 1972 the National Foundation for Educational Research published the most recent in a series of national surveys on this subject which was conducted at the request of the Department of Education. Broadly speaking, so far as 1970-71 is concerned, it showed that the progressive improvement in reading standards which had been observed in previous surveys between 1948 and 1961 had not been maintained. One might deduce from the surveys that at the 15-year-old level there was an increase in scores between 1948 and 1971, though the increase in the
942
1960s was marginal. For the 11-year-old groups there were steadily rising scores until the early 1960s. That was then followed by a slight decline by 1970–71. But we hope that the Bullock Report will throw further light on the assessment of the present situation.
This is where I should like to disagree as tentatively as I can with the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his reference to the literacy standards at Oxford and of our university undergraduates and graduates in general, because he even included the D.Phil, in this context. He asked me to endorse what he had said about the decline which he has found in literacy standards in Oxford since 1946 or 1948. But I cannot endorse that. I have not been at Oxford for so long as the noble Lord; I was an import from the other place. However, I have been there for over twenty years and, during this period, I have not detected the decline to which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred. I say that in the context of the fact that though he admitted he gave up teaching six years' ago, because he was called to other and higher duties, I have not yet given up teaching at Oxford. I still continue teaching on. Saturday mornings to make sure that I am in close touch with the literacy standards of the pupils at least in my own college and those who attend my university lectures. My experience does not tally with that of the noble Lord in that respect. Whatever the precise figures are, this is an area in which we must express concern.
What we must be particularly concerned about is what is being done and what should be done about literacy standards. It is in this context that it is a great pity the Bullock Report could not be published before this debate. We have moved heaven and earth within the Department to try to achieve its publication before the date of this debate but in the end it has turned out, most unfortunately, not to be possible. The Report should be available later this month or in the very near future. The setting up of the Bullock Committee by the previous Government was an indication of the concern on all sides that we must take further action, and the most effective action possible, in this field. When the Report is published no doubt we shall all find it is a most valuable contribution to our understanding of the extent of the

943
problems that we have been discussing this afternoon and what we should do about them.
A number of suggestions have been made in speeches by noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, at one point was placing emphasis on the Initial Teaching Alphabet. This was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, pressed the importance of the Initial Teaching Alphabet, as did the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. But we all recognise, as both of them did, that so far as this system is concerned there is the difficulty of the need for the child to change over to the standard alphabet at a later stage.
An independent assessment of the value of the Initial Teaching Alphabet was carried out between 1965 and 1968 on behalf of the Schools Council by the late Professor Warburton and Vera Southgate. Their report was published in 1969. They found that while children initially learned to read faster by the Initial Teaching Alphabet, after about three years of schooling their reading attainment was roughly equal to those of children taught by the orthodox alphabet. Their conclusion points however to the ITA system as being a valuable method of learning which has undoubtedly produced very good results; but they do not make the case for its adoption in place of other methods. Let us hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, that no doubt the Bullock Report will throw further light on this. In any event, we need to remember that it is for the schools them-selves, not for the Department, to make decisions on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, warned us of the dangers of getting the balance wrong between the responsibilities and duties of the Department on the one hand, and not interfering too much, or at all, in precisely what hap-pens in the schools, on the other hand. There is something here that we can do and we are in fact doing—and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be particularly pleased with this point. The Department announced last year its intention to set up an Assessment of Performance Unit. The noble Lord was perhaps particularly concerned that we were not doing enough to monitor what was happening. The
944
aims of the unit are to encourage the development of better and more varied methods of assessing the performance of pupils in schools. It is expected that the procedures developed will go beyond the field of literacy alone, and will help teachers to monitor the progress of individual pupils more effectively and so pro-vide more surely for their progress. The assessments should also make it possible to identify differences of achievement, related to the circumstances in which children learn, so that all who are concerned with the problem of under-achievement, whatever the cause, can be supplied with information that will enable them to deploy available resources in the most effective way.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask for illumination on this: is this an internal operation of the Department, as it were, or is a method being developed and standards being produced which can be used by the schools themselves?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the unit is internal to the Department, but it is seeking to develop standards in consultation with all outside bodies so that they may be used within the schools themselves. It is in this general context that I welcomed the most helpful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He will no doubt be pleased to learn about the Educational Disadvantage Unit, which has been set up by the Government inside the Department. It will be particularly concerned with children who seem likely, among other things, to find difficulty in learning to read. It will not include within its interest children who are ascertained as handicapped: it will be looking at the normal child. Of course, the Warnock Committee is concerned with the education of handicapped children, and that will be reporting in due course.
There is, as we all know, a small group whose reading abilities are significantly below the standards which their abilities in other spheres would lead one to expect Here, of course, I am talking about the problem of dyslexia. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, has particularly drawn your Lordships' attention to this problem in telling us of his personal experience. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, have

945
anticipated much of what I should have said about this distressing and baffling condition. As the noble Lord said, this term of dyslexia is applied to the condition of a comparatively small group of people who find it very difficult to acquire the skills of reading and writing, but who show no obvious reason for this. Their general ability is very often above aver-age, and their home backgrounds contain none of the symptoms of disadvantage with which educationists are now only too familiar. But they cannot learn to read as other children do.
It was because of growing concern that the then Secretary of State asked the Advisory Committee to report on this subject. Their Report, Children with Specific Reading Difficulties, set out the problems and suggested ways of dealing with them, but did not produce complete or simple solutions. Indeed there cannot be simple solutions in this area. I shall certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the remarks that have been made today about the need for more research and for many more facilities in this area.
I should like at this point to pay tribute to the work of the British Dyslexia Association, to which many speakers have referred, and which is of course well known in the Department. It was perhaps because of the natural concern which parents displayed in the work of the Association that the Tizard Report of 1972 did not mention this specifically but talked about "people with reading difficulties". I agree wholeheartedly that it is an essential part of helping these children to take parents completely into the process of helping them and to draw on all the help that they will give, as the personal accounts we have heard this afternoon have shown.
I turn now to suggestions about colleges of education and the teaching of reading. It has been suggested that the colleges of education are failing to teach the teaching of reading. This is a point which is of as much concern to the colleges themselves as it is to the rest of us. They are conscious of their duty to equip teachers to teach the skills of reading and the use of language, and they have themselves been examining and re-examining their aims and methods here. It is only fair to say that the colleges, like the teachers,
946
are beset by a number of theories about the right way of learning to read, and they cannot hope to please everyone all the time. However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord that this is an area where we need to give all possible advice, without interfering with what is being done. I am sure that the sentiments of your Lordships in this context will have been noted by the educational world in general, and by colleges of education in particular.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to go a little further? He will remember the figure I quoted of one teacher in eight in the primary sector having had no training in the teaching of reading. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that a quarter of those teachers received that in their first two years, and therefore have come through the training machinery very recently indeed. So what we have here are not different methods taught by different people but the fact that no training at all is being given. Is it altogether out of order for the Government to advise colleges? After all, the Government instruct schools to teach religion, so why should they not advise colleges on the teaching of reading?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and will take advice on this subject with a view, I hope, to taking appropriate action, because my concern about this is as great as that of the noble Lord and of others who have spoken this afternoon.
Turning now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, about social disadvantage, his great emphasis was laid on the fact that one way of making a major contribution in this area would be to "get rid of poverty". I may be summarising the noble Lord unduly, but that was part of the burden of what he was saying. Research has confirmed that in all developed countries there is a firm relationship between reading ability and social circumstances. The National Child Development Study has shown that the gap in reading ability between children from different social backgrounds widens as the children grow older. It is part of the Government's general policies, and also of their educational policies, to give special help to deprived families and

947
areas. This should do something to help in the longer term to make some contribution to the solution of the problem. I think it will also do something to ameliorate the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he spoke about the turnover of teachers. This is particularly acute in certain special areas, and our policies are designed to do something about that.
The Government are also committed to the expansion of nursery education. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education said in another place last April, the aim of the Government is to make provision as soon as possible for nursery education for children of three and four years of age, mainly on a part-time basis. The necessary building programme has already begun and local education authorities in England have allocations which total £21·5 million for projects to start during the current building year. It is inevitable that the whole programme will take time to complete, and for the present some young children cannot enjoy the benefits of nursery education. Local education authorities have been asked to give priority to meeting the needs of disadvantaged children here.
Now illiteracy and semi-illiteracy are not confined to the present school population. Many adults, as has been mentioned by several speakers, have to wrestle with these problems. Their school days are behind them but their lack of reading and writing skills creates for them many of the difficulties experienced by their younger counterparts. Their numbers have been variously estimated. Figures of 2 million have been mentioned by noble Lords this afternoon. One noble Lord went as far as to say 3 million. Whatever the true number may be, there is no doubt that in this country, with all its educational advantages, the problem is much larger than it should be.
It needs no special perception to recognise the poignancy of the illiterate adult's situation. Many conceal their difficulties, even from their wives and families. In some instances, so great is the embarrassment caused to them by illiteracy, adults have been known not only to carry round a pair of broken spectacles, as was noted by a noble Lord, but to bandage their writing hands or pretend they have forgotten
948
their reading glasses if they think they will be expected to read or write. Others refuse promotion at their work, although well able otherwise to take on more responsibility, because by promotion they fear their lack of reading and writing skills will be exposed.
That is why last July the Government announced their readiness to make additional resources available to help institutions working to combat adult illiteracy. The Government's action does not mean that a great deal is not already, and was not already, being done. Local education authorities and voluntary associations, such as the Settlement movement, were and are making increasing provision; and much has been and is being done by the British Association of Settlements, and, more recently, the National Committee for Adult Literacy, to encourage those already engaged in this field, and to focus attention on what more needs to be accomplished.
Mention should be made here, of course, as noble Lords have emphasised, of the role played by the BBC and the independent television companies as well as by the Press. Their programmes and articles have helped to spotlight the needs of illiterate adults and have held out hope to them by demonstrating that it is still possible for adults to learn to read and write, even late in life. Indeed, the BBC, as noble Lords have noted, has taken an imaginative initiative, which will surely have an important influence on all provision in this field, by its three-year project to teach adults reading and writing skills, which will begin on television in the autumn of this year.
The Government believed that further action was necessary to help local education authorities and other institutions working to combat adult illiteracy. To take such action is in keeping with our belief that, in times of economic stringency, nevertheless resources should go to those who need them most, and it is fully in harmony with the important emphasis of the Russell Report on the role of adult education with the disadvantaged. The Government were also concerned that, at a time when local authorities and voluntary bodies are under very considerable financial constraints because of our present economic difficulties, the BBC's television and radio literacy

949
project was likely to stimulate an increasing—and probably very considerable—number of requests for further teaching. We wanted therefore to be able to help local authorities and other bodies to respond to these demands. So the National Institute of Adult Education was invited to establish an agency to administer the sum of about £1 million, as noble Lords have mentioned this afternoon, to be provided by the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department during this and the next financial year.
The Institute has accepted this invitation. The agency will provide local education authorities and other bodies with audio-visual and other technological aids (initially for use in connection with the BBC's project), arrange crash programmes for the training of tutors and for the trainers of tutors, provide teaching materials, help voluntary agencies with some minor capital expenditure, and provide some short-term action in the area of research and experimental programmes. The agency expects to be fully operational by April of this year. The National Institute has just appointed Mr. H. D. Hughes, Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford, and President of the Workers' Educational Association, as the chairman of its management committee; and the Inner London Education Authority have kindly agreed to second Mr. William Devereux, the Authority's education officer in charge of community education and careers, to be its director.
So, my Lords, an impressive amount is being done and is in the pipeline—not enough, of course. Many noble Lords have made many suggestions this afternoon which I have not taken up and which I have not had time to reply to— I see I have now already been on my feet for 25 minutes and so I do not want to weary your Lordships longer. But I hope I have said enough to show that the Government are doing a lot and want to do more in this area. I have taken note of the five points of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I prefer them very much to the 14 points of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. The five seemed to me to move in the right direction, just as the other 14 moved in the wrong direction, although I have no doubt that Lord Sudeley would take comfort from some of the statistics which Lord Elton put forward on the
950
extent of illiteracy today. It must have been very pleasing news indeed to Lord Sudeley, although I must say it was not very pleasing news to me and to my noble friends on this side of the House.
My Lords, a lot is being done—but not enough. This is true of so much we should like to do in so many other aspects of our national life if funds were unlimited. But I think I have said enough to indicate that the Government have a real concern for all the questions that have been raised today. If your Lordships feel that we are not doing enough or moving fast enough—and no Governments ever do enough in the pursuit of good causes; we should all like to do more—then I have no doubt that this debate, followed soon by the publication of the Bullock Report, will give a new urgency to our efforts and will generate still more pressures in this right cause. All this I very much welcome, and we will do our best to continue and develop our policies accordingly.
6.57 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, it would be discourteous if I did not say a word at the winding-up of this debate. It would be even more discourteous if I said many words at the winding-up of a debate. May I first express my thanks to the three noble Lords on the Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Blake, Lord Elton and Lord Crowther-Hunt, for their notable contributions to this debate. I take very much to heart the peroration with which Lord Crowther-Hunt ended his speech. One small detail is that I have been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who sat throughout the debate until just before the end, if I would read one little note from him. We have been talking about dyslexia. Lord Halsbury devotes much of his time to the problems of nurses, doctors and medical auxiliaries in hospitals, and he writes:
"In the course of visiting 70 hospitals to study the working conditions of nurses, midwives, para-medicals, et cetera, I paid particular attention to the work of speech therapists. Although they are in short supply for their own work, they do their best to occupy the vacuum that is at present represented by lack of dyslexic therapy."
At least, there is a positive note, even if it is only a detail.
I am grateful to two very old friends of mine: the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for the kind of able speech

951
I would have expected him to make as his maiden speech; and the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, who has been working with me in a voluntary capacity in the field of ITA for a very long time. At a certain moment this debate took a very dramatic turn. We heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, who spoke about his own child—and I would echo the tribute that Lord Renwick paid to his wife for all that she has done for the dyslexic child. It was followed by a speech by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who has now made dyslexia his life's interest, and is President of the Dyslexia Institute. It was followed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who spoke about the problems of his own child's reading disabilities and learning disabilities. That was followed by my close friend the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, whose life fighting her own disability has the admiration of us all, and who now has to cope with the disability of having a dyslexic son—a son whom I met a week ago when she was taking him for treatment.
The debate suddenly became very warm and very human. There was a moment when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that when you are faced with this problem you find that you stand alone. I had been talking about the lack of a good home life as one of the great causes of illiteracy. The examples that we have had this afternoon show that these reading disabilities can enter the homes of good families, and that dyslexic children, or children with speech difficulties and the rest, with loving parents, with parents who are better off, at any rate have a little more chance than children who have the same disabilities but come from homes where nobody cares for them. One hopes that the story which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us of his own efforts on behalf of his own child—all the problems involved—and the story which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, told us of all the interviews and problems she had to face in looking after her son, will stimu-late the appropriate Department to increase the provision that we make for those who suffer from reading disabilities of any kind.
I think that this has been a useful debate. I began by expressing my thanks
952
to those on the Cross-Benches for allowing me to initiate it. I am grateful to all who have taken part in it. In a way, it is a forerunner to the appearance of the Bullock Report. I hope that from what has been said today, and, above all, from the appearance of the Bullock Report, there will be a real drive towards the ending of illiteracy. I deliberately have not referred to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. I have tried to remember one point upon which I find myself in agreement with him. I know from the Who's Who list that his hobby is ancestor worship. However, I agreed with him when he told us that Macaulay was a bigoted Whig. I would ask him to agree that Dr. Johnson was an equally bigoted Tory. Both were distinguished literary figures. What was wrong with them was not that they were literate, but that they were bigoted. The noble Lord seemed to equate the two. My Lords, I am grateful to everybody. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill. It is the product of the resolve of both Her Majesty's Government of the Republic of Ireland to find a solution to the problem of the fugitive terrorist in Ireland and of bringing the bomb and bullet men to justice. Complementary legislation—the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill—was introduced in the Dail last November.
Both Governments have shared the widespread concern about the difficulty of obtaining the return to Northern Ire-land from the Republic of persons accused of terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland. In December 1973, as your Lordships will know, the Sunningdale Conference, which included elected representatives of political Parties of Northern Ireland as well as the British and Irish Governments, agreed that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial, irrespective of the part of Ireland in which they are located. As a result, a joint Law

953
Enforcement Commission was appointed to study the problem. The present proposals in the Bill flow directly from the conclusions of that Commission.
There is no formal extradition treaty between the Republic and the United Kingdom. The return of offenders between the two countries is normally achieved by the police of one country executing a warrant issued in the other and bringing the accused before a court which decides whether to surrender him. The court must be satisfied that the offence corresponds with an offence under the law of its own country and that it is not one of a political character. In addition, in the Republic, but not in the United Kingdom, a court must be satisfied that it is not an offence connected with a political offence. This procedure is confined to the police and the courts, and in neither country can the Executive intervene. These arrangements represent an earlier example of complementary legislation worked out in consultation between the two Governments, and it has functioned effectively in non-political cases and will continue to apply.
However, since the troubles in Northern Ireland started no person accused of what could be termed a terrorist offence has been returned to Northern Ireland to face trial. The startling void this has created Will be evident to your Lordships when I quote the example of a man, who admitted that he was a member of the IRA, who, last year, appealed in the Republic against his extradition to Northern Ireland on a charge of murder. In the High Court in Dublin he is reported as having given an account of his part in the placing of a bomb outside a police station which killed two innocent passers-by when it exploded. The judge ruled that he must hold that it was a political offence, and he is reported as having said:
"I am not entitled to have any regard to the fact that the admitted activities of the present applicant seemed to breach any concept of humanity or any civilised form of conduct."
This illustrates the grim difficulties that the existing state of the law in the Republic presents to members of the Judiciary there and, indeed, to ourselves. I might add that the conviction of an accomplice for murder involving this same incident has been secured in Northern Ireland.
954
As I have said, in the Republic a court needs to be satisfied that an offence is not connected with a political offence before extradition can be ordered. This provision, which is incorporated in the Republic's extradition law, is derived from the European Convention on Extradition to which the Republic is a party, but we in the United Kingdom are not. As a result, the circumstances in which an appeal can be mounted against extradition are wider in the Republic than in the United Kingdom. But apart from this, judgments in courts in the Republic such as the one that I have cited—and there are others—have indicated that if a person appeals against extradition on the grounds that he committed his offence as a member of the IRA that offence is likely to be regarded as political and non-extraditable.
It was recognised at the Sunningdale Conference that the problem itself and the possible solutions were complex, and so the Enforcement Commission was set up to advise on the most effective legal means of bringing to justice fugitive terrorists in Ireland. The United Kingdom members of the Commission included the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and Lord Justice Scarman, and their Report, produced jointly with their Irish colleagues, was presented to Parliament in May of last year when both Governments agreed on the action to be taken on the proposals in the Report. The method upon which all the members of the Com-mission were able to agree, and which was accepted by both Governments, was the so-called "extra-territorial" method; namely, that the courts in each part of Ireland should have jurisdiction to try under their own domestic law, certain offences wherever they happened to be committed in Ireland. It is a general principle that our criminal law is limited to offences committed on our own territory of the United Kingdom. But there are already precedents both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland for the assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction.
The Commission agreed the range of offences to which the scheme should apply and that the only way in which a court could exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction would be by trying a person arrested within its own jurisdiction for scheduled offences committed in the other jurisdiction—in other words, he must clearly be a fugitive; secondly, that the

955
accused should be given the option to return to his own jurisdiction for trial; third, that the Attorney General in each jurisdiction should decide whether to institute proceedings; and fourth, that witnesses should not be compelled to cross the Border to give evidence. This last point in the Commission's proposals, which is an important feature of the Bill, involves a new procedure, namely, the taking of evidence on Commission whereby evidence can be taken in the other jurisdiction in the presence of the accused and the trial court.
The offences to which the scheme will apply are called "extra-territorial offences" and, as your Lordships will see, they are defined in Clause 1. The offences are those listed in Schedule 1 together with the offences in Clauses 2 and 3 and the inchoate offences in Clause 6(2). Clause 1 of the Bill provides that an act or omission taking place in the Republic of Ireland which, if committed in Northern Ireland, would be an offence under Schedule 1, shall constitute an offence in Northern Ireland. They are all serious offences where, in view of the circumstances that I indicated a few moments ago, political motivation might be pleaded as a defence against extradi-tion. Clause 2 and Clause 3 create new offences. Clause 2 deals with the offence of hijacking and the use of vehicles for planting bombs by proxy. Those offences have of late become common features of terrorist activity.
Clause 3 makes it an offence for a person to escape in the Republic when in legal custody in connection with an offence which is an extra-territorial offence under the law either of the Republic or of Northern Ireland. Extra-territorial offences under the law of the Republic are defined; these are, basically, the analogous offences under the corresponding legislation introduced by the Republic to extra-territorial offences under the Bill. The legislation therefore has been substantially complementary. Clause 4 read with Schedule 2 makes amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which have the effect of enabling trials of extra-territorial offences to be heard without a jury and restrict the granting of bail and the place of trial. The Bill makes these provisions permanent for the trial of extra-territorial
956
offences. That is for a practical reason. Just as some witnesses will not be prepared to cross the Border to give evidence and cannot reasonably be expected to do so, neither would many jurors be willing to cross the Border in the opposite direction to be present at the taking of evidence on commission. Even if they were willing the problem of the transport of jurors and their security would make the arrangement impracticable. The equivalent trials in the Republic will be before the special criminal court of three judges which sits without a jury. There-fore, until trial by jury is restored in Northern Ireland there will be three judges trying these cases in the Republic and a judge alone trying them in Northern Ireland. This country and the Republic have mutual confidence in their judicial systems. Indeed the backing of warrants legislation could not have worked in ordinary criminal cases as it has done were this not so. Nevertheless, the Bill provides a safeguard for the accused, in that he may opt to return for trial to the jurisdiction where the alleged crime was committed. Protection is also provided against double jeopardy. Proceedings cannot be taken in Northern Ireland where there has been a conviction or acquittal of the alleged offence in the Republic.
My Lords, I now turn to the key issue of witnesses. While some police officers have given evidence in the Republic, it is understandable that many witnesses have a real fear of crossing the border to give evidence. The Law Enforcement Commission recognised this and recommended administrative measures designed to win the confidence of witnesses and to encourage them to make the journey to the place of trial, such as special arrangements for travel and for accommodation if overnight stay is necessary. I hope it will reassure all potential witnesses when I say that the Government have agreed with the Irish Government that full security measures will be taken to protect witnesses who travel to the other jurisdiction. In addition, Clause 5 empowers a court trying an extra-territorial offence to withhold the names and addresses of witnesses and, together with Schedule 4, applies a suggestion by the Commission which will help if witnesses are not prepared to travel. If the court of trial so decides,

957
on the request of the prosecution or the accused, it will request the other jurisdiction to nominate a Commissioner, who will be a High Court Judge, to hear the evidence of certain witnesses who are not prepared to travel to the place of trial. The Commissioner will hear the evidence in private in the presence of the trial judges, and of the accused if he wishes to be present. Counsel for the prosecution and the defence will also be present and normal cross-examination of the witness will take place. The trial judges will be able to request the Commissioner to put particular questions to the witness if they so wish. The Commissioner will be empowered to withhold names and addresses of witnesses when evidence on commission is being taken. The taking of such evidence in the presence of trial judges does not interfere with the normal inherent power of a court to determine when evidence is admissible and what weight should be given to it.
My Lords, the Republic Bill and this Bill have been drafted in close consultation with the Irish authorities, and so far as the Law Enforcement Commission's proposals are concerned, are for the most part reciprocal and complementary. In one important respect both Bills go beyond the scope of the Commission's terms of reference. Clause 7, which ex-tends to the whole of the United Kingdom, amends the Explosive Substances Act 1883 so that courts anywhere in the United Kingdom will have jurisdiction to try two kinds of explosive offence aimed at targets in the Republic. First, there is the offence under Section 3 of the 1883 Act, which is concerned with various preparatory acts. For practical purposes the core of the offence is the act of conspiring to cause an explosion, whether or not an explosion does in fact actually happen.
It is already an offence triable in United Kingdom courts for anyone in Her Majesty's Dominions, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies anywhere, to conspire to cause an explosion in the Republic. In respect of this offence all that Clause 7 does is to re-enact the provisions of existing United Kingdom law in a clearer form.
There are two reasons for doing this. The Irish Bill goes further than is required by the Law Enforcement Commistion's
958
proposals, in extending to preparatory acts aimed at explosions outside Ireland and it would thus enable a trial to take place in the Republic of anyone who conspired there, or of an Irish citizen who conspired anywhere else, to cause an explosion anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Irish provision would therefore be valuable to Britain as well as to Northern Ireland and we think it right to give the Irish Government the clearest indication that reciprocity is available in United Kingdom law. The second and associated reason behind the proposed new Section 3 of the 1883 Act is that, although our law already covers conspiracy to cause an explosion in the Republic, the relevant provision is to be found in an extremely obscure and practically unobtainable Instrument—The Irish Free State (Consequential Adaptation of Enactments) Order 1923—which is certainly not readily accessible to the practitioner in Great Britain. It is un-satisfactory that the law on such an important issue should be so hard to find and it is in any case desirable to restate the law in a clearer and modern form.
The second offence for which Clause 7 provides for extended jurisdiction is the substantive one of causing an explosion. Under present United Kingdom law, someone who committed this offence in the Republic and was found in the United Kingdom could not at present be tried here for the substantive offence—though it might be possible in a particular case to prefer a charge under Section 3 for a preparatory act. Implementation of the Law Enforcement Commission's proposals in respect of the substantive offence of causing an explosion would require an extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction, but for Northern Ireland only. However, for reasons of consistency it is desirable that the extension of jurisdiction to cover explosions actually caused in the Republic should apply throughout the United Kingdom, particularly as there is already such jurisdiction for acts preparatory to causing an explosion. The position that we have now, whereby a person could be convicted in a British court of conspiring to commit an act which was not itself punishable here is clearly not satisfactory, and Clause 7 will correct this. I should make it celar that the Irish Bill as it stands does not contain a reciprocal provision. The Irish Government

959
has been invited to reciprocate. We shall await the result of the discussions which have been taking place.
Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill concern technical matters relating to evidence and provide for the offence of perjury for the making of false statements. Prosecutions will be made only with the consent of the Attorney General and this is provided for in Clause 11. Clause 12 amends the law concerning the prosecution of offences. It is a law reform not directly connected with the extra-territorial jurisdiction aspect of the Bill, but is introduced here as a matter of convenience because some doubts have been expressed about the clarity of the existing law.
Finally, I should make clear that the new arrangements proposed in the Bill do not preclude the police from making applications under the Backing of Warrants Act where the accused does not appear to be politically motivated or where it seems reasonable that the courts will return them. If an extradition application fails, it will still be possible to proceed under the new scheme as pro-posed in the Bill.
My Lords, in the last four years some 38 warrants for persons wanted for terrorist offences have been sent from Northern Ireland to the Republic and your Lordships may think that this number is not large and does not justify a Bill of this nature. But the 38 terrorist crimes concerned were serious offences indeed, and the number of warrants would have been greater if witnesses had been forthcoming and if it were possible for the police to question suspects across the Border. Co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda is not a matter that can be legislated for, but the success of the Bill will largely depend on it and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the Irish Government have agreed that they will provide all assistance and facilities needed by the RUC in the investigation of crime. Similarly the mounting of prosecutions will depend on the closest possible co-operation between the authorities on both sides of the border, and here again I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government have agreed that this will be forthcoming from both sides.
960
This Bill and the equivalent Bill in the Republic demonstrate that both Governments are as one in their determination to conquer violence. This Bill aims a double blow at the terrorist. It should remove a refuge and enable evidence to be obtained more easily to bring them to book. Yet at the same time it does not prejudice the right to a fair trial which is cherished on each side of the Border. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.28 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, after such a lucid and brilliant exposition of this Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am slightly intimidated, like the witnesses appearing before him. However, as this Bill affects so very much the whole morale of Northern Ireland and the future of relations between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, it is right that I should make some comments on it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has quite rightly pointed out that the extradition process simply cannot work, because without any further ado, except to claim that he was connected with a political body, an accused person can prevent the extradition process from taking place. I can assure your Lordships that the population of Northern Ireland has been outraged frequently by such instances as have been described by the noble and learned Lord, of people admitting that they have committed murder and saying, "But of course, this is connected with a political crime." Indeed, the people of the United Kingdom as a whole have been outraged at the failure to extradite Father Burns from Scotland.
The solution which the Law Commission went for had to do two things. The Commission wanted to establish that these people should be fairly tried. But the Commission had another aim, which was to establish trust between the people of the North and South of Ireland, so that they could jointly form institutions which would work as a permanent method. It is by that criterion of whether this Bill provides a fair trial, and by the second criterion of providing confidence between the people of the North and South of

961
Ireland, that I judge it. In case I for-get, because I shall certainly speak about one or two matters I find rather worrying, I should like to say that I welcome the Bill, because any step in this direction, no matter how small, must be right.
When I read the Report of the Law Commission, I must admit to being rather worried about the attitude of the lawyers who came from the Irish Republic. The Law Commission were commanded as a matter of extremely urgency to deal with this problem. It was obvious from the objections which they put up to extradition, which the British lawyers unitedly agreed was the best method, that there was some other problem behind the procedure. The truth is that extradition is politically impossible for the Irish Government to carry out. I feel very strongly that a lot more confidence might have built up between ourselves and Dublin had this been admitted at the very beginning and four months of legal argument avoided, because the Executive which existed immediately after Sunningdale was dependent on rapid action and a rapid solution to this problem. As the weeks dragged by, it became more and more difficult to sustain any belief that there was an urgency on the part of the lawyers from Dublin. The solution which we now have, and this is agreed by the British lawyers, is very much a second-best. An extradition treaty properly enacted and properly amended would be the answer.
My Lords, I find a certain lack of logic in this, because, as I understand it—and I almost asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to clarify my mind on it—the question of witnesses being heard in, for instance, the United Kingdom in the case of somebody who is arraigned in Dublin does not apply; that is to say, the method of examining witnesses extra-territorially applies only to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I feel that that is not a very logical situation, and I should like to paint the picture as I see it. Let us imagine that the Birmingham bombers had got away to Dublin. I wonder whether we would have got extradition for that crime. Would they have been returned to us by the Dublin Government?
Let us assume that they pleaded that
962
it was a political offence. You then get to the question: would the witnesses go from Birmingham to Dublin to make sure that those murderers were convicted. If you read the list of the people who were hurt in that terrible explosion, their names are quite clearly either lately out of Ireland or one generation away from Ireland. Do you think that those people, with names like McGahey and so on, would go to Dublin with full publicity, knowing that the IRA would know where their relatives were? I believe it would be tantamount to subjecting their whole families to the most appalling intimidation. Therefore, I feel that it would be right to move an Amendment that this whole Bill applies throughout the United Kingdom. But as well as that, on a pure matter of pride, I feel that this is making Northern Ireland different in legal terms from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I should like to know this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that there is trust between the courts of both countries, but it seems to me to come out of this Bill and out of the Law Commission, that the Irish Republic trust our courts to examine and assess witnesses, but they do not trust us to try them. It seems to me that half the battle of a court in trying someone is in the assessment of witnesses. There are at least seventy cases of extradition at the moment awaiting service. If this Bill becomes an Act and there comes a flow of these cases through to our courts, the strain on our already overworked and very gallant, brave judges will be enormous, because the method of examining witnesses, the consultation between judges, will be extremely cumbersome and we are very short of people at the Bar and on the Bench.
I would now turn to the question of witnesses. According to the Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, there are already just under 500 witnesses who have failed to come forward in cases of serious crime. It would be impossible for the courts to prosecute these people, because there are cases where it is more just that they should escape being murdered, than that they should be forced to come and give witness. But how much more difficult will this be if this Bill becomes law, when somebody in the North of Ireland who

963
is witness to a serious crime of murder is examined in court by the counsel for the defence who is a member of the Southern Irish Bar? This is nowhere near as safe as the method which we have in Northern Ireland. I asked whether a key witness to a murder—and the murderer I am talking about has committed more than one murder—was presented with an order to come forward and give witness under those conditions, and I regret to say that the answer was, No. The person I am referring to is a person of great substance and great courage. I feel very hesitant in saying this, but I am afraid that people will not come forward and give witness under this Bill and without witnesses it will never work.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to make a comment here? Nobody has ever thought that this Bill will do away with intimidation. This is the great problem in Northern Ireland. It will not be altered, and nobody ever thought it would be. I really think the noble Viscount is setting up an Aunt Sally to knock down. The object of this Bill is specific, coming out of the Sunningdale Agreement agreed by both sides, that fugitives from justice can be apprehended and tried. It is as simple as that.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's castigation, but I feel that the exercise of this Bill will be much more subject to intimidation than the exercise of the law as it exists at present. I hope that the Director of Prosecutions in Dublin will not be slow to act on this Bill when it becomes law, because in the past, when we have had the Offences Against the State Act, it has not been until physical attacks in the Irish Republic have occurred that we have had very much movement on the part of the authorities. I am also worried about the inflammatory effect of bringing up somebody from Dublin on trial, having to be protected by the police; for instance, the lady who had a hand in murdering the three soldiers. It will not be a very easy matter, unless it is handled with great care and confidence, to bring these people up to be examined. I hope that the examination of the witnesses at
964
that point will be given as little publicity as possible.
At the present moment, my Lords, the Dublin Government is showing a tremendous determination to win, and it is a great satisfaction to everybody in the North of Ireland. But people are very worried about the return to the Front Bench of the great architect of the present IRA, Mr. Haughey. While this may not be relevant to the Bill now, it is reported that the Opposition are freely saying that they are quite happy with it, because under Article 3 of their Constitution this will be declared ultra vires. If I may, I shall read to your Lordships this article, which would seem to bear out what they say:
"Pending the reintegration of the national territory and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Seanad Eireann and the like extra-territorial effect".
That appears to me to say that they cannot legislate for anything outside the 26 counties. If this is so, and the Fianna Fail is quite happy that this Act can go through and that all the cases referred to it can be challenged in the courts and called ultra vires, then the damage that could be done to the relationship between the North and the South of Ireland would be very great indeed.
My Lords, the intention of the Law Commission was to give confidence to the people of Ulster and to ensure that criminals should be brought to justice and given a fair trial. I hope that this may go a little way to achieve it. I am afraid that I am not optimistic as to its operation because, in the end, extradition is the only way to provide proper justice.
7.42 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a Bill which I am sure your Lordships will welcome. It is an ingenious attempt to deal with a very difficult situation. The noble Viscount who has just spoken rather doubted whether it will go very far, and it may well be that he is right, but I feel that we ought to make every effort that is open to us. This certainly is an ingenious attempt to cover part, at any rate, of this difficult ground. It is a complicated Bill, and in spite of the lucid way in which the noble and learned

965
Lord on the Woolsack explained it to us I could not help feeling, particularly in connection with Clause 7, that it might well come back to your Lordships sitting in a different status as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, because the possibility of raising ingenious points under it is obviously a very clear one.
My main object in intervening this evening is not to point out these difficulties but to ask a simple question also asked by the noble Viscount; that is, why the Bill is confined to Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has pointed out to us that a similar reciprocal measure now going through the Dail in Southern Ireland applies generally to the United Kingdom. I cannot see why this particular Bill also should not apply generally to the United Kingdom. Noble Lords opposite have referred to Birmingham—which is not the only place in England where dastardly crimes of the same kind as those perpetrated in Northern Ireland have been committed—and also to Scotland. Therefore, I should have thought that there was a strong case for covering the British Isles as well as Ulster. What is going to happen to that type of case is not clear.
I have heard it said that this Bill is being criticised in Northern Ireland in that it establishes a sort of Sudetenland in Northern Ireland. I am sure that this is not the case, and that this is far from the Government's mind, yet it is the kind of criticism which can be, and is in fact being made. I think it requires a strong answer on the part of Her Majesty's Government to remove it. The best way of removing it would be to extend the provisions of this Bill to the United Kingdom.
Looking through some of the Schedules of the Bill, I could not make out whether the criminal law of England as it appears in the Statutes was being modified by the repeal of Statutes, or sections of Statutes, or whether these sections of Statutes are repealed only in respect of Northern Ireland. I can see that this might give rise to considerable legal difficulty when cases come before the courts. This, of course, could all be got over by making the Bill applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom instead of just to Northern Ireland. I cannot see why it should be limited in this way, and I hope
966
that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us a good reason as to why it should be so.
7.46 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, in the context of events in recent years in Northern Ireland, surely there is very little room for jobbing back. Indeed, it is one of the mercies of the tangled story of the last six years that events have changed, sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes dramatically. From the politicians I think this requires foresight rather than regret, planning not recrimination. Yet it would be a delusion not to recognise that this Bill, a constructive consequence of the Sunningdale Agreement, is desired to satisfy a need which has remained constant throughout the cross-current of recent events in Ireland—the need for both North and South to work together to banish the scourge of terrorism from each of their jurisdictions. My Lords, I realise that naturally to the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland it seems clear that terrorist acts stem from the opportunity for the terrorist to be able to melt away into the background, usually provided by a safe house, and from the facility to be able to slip across the Border, there to shelter behind the restriction placed upon the extradition of fugitive offenders.
To deal with this problem the Report of the Law Enforcement Commission clearly showed that legal opinion from the United Kingdom favours extradition of offenders at present excluded because of their political character. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brookeborough that this would be the best method for bringing fugitive offenders to justice. But, of course, as a whole, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recorded, the Commission could not agree on this point so we had this Bill which gives effect to the Commission's agreed alternative—a system of extra-territorial jurisdiction.
My Lords, I am grateful, and other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is versed in the law, have also thanked the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the main provisions of the Bill. Although the Law Enforcement Commission affirmed that the situation required not far-reaching law reform but immediate practical

967
measures, nevertheless inevitably this Bill is legal in character. It is also complicated—at least I find it so—because although the Bill's effect is to confer on courts in Northern Ireland jurisdiction to try fugitive offenders accused of serious crimes of violence in the Republic, it also refers, for instance, in the Schedules, to reciprocal procedures which together make up the total agreement which is now being put into effect by this legislation and by legislation being presented to the Dial in Dublin.
May I echo what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough said, that it is regrettable that it has not been possible to present these Bills more swiftly. More than once the Law Enforcement Commission refer-red to the need for speed, and in Chapter 1 of their Report indicated the scale of the problem as they say it by reference to the 33 warrants outstanding since 1st April 1971 which have been forwarded to the Republic for crimes now set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. In the ten months which have subsequently elapsed, further warrants have followed and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his speech, none has succeeded in extracting an offender. Having said that, I think the delay has had this advantage: the recent Christmas ceasefire has shown that this Bill is being introduced at a time when people increasingly long for peace.
So it is to be hoped that to the provisions of this Bill there will be added the strength of public opinion which will reject the terrorist who is on the run and will determine to assist the courts in both jurisdictions to make this legislation really work. For let us not deceive ourselves about the prospects of success to which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough referred. The solution of extra-territorial courts will require a fund of good will and co-operation and the most effective security on both sides of the Border. If I may give just one example of the former requirement, good will and co-operation, it is rather well illustrated in the somewhat complicated provisions of Schedule 3 (3). These protect, as I understand it, a person who has been extradited for a non-extra-territorial offence. if he is subsequently accused of an extra-territorial offence in the South, and, of course, there is the reciprocal provision
968
in the Dail's Bill. I appreciate the reasons for the safeguard and, indeed, it could be most important for us reciprocally; but obviously it is not the intention that such a person will simply be allowed to go scot free after seven days. Presumably in such cases the Republic will issue a warrant which will require the accused not to go free, but either to opt to return for trial under Schedule 3(2), or to stand trial where he, in fact, is in Northern Ireland.
However, the will to make this legislation work effectively will need the support of the Security Force. After all, judges will be required to cross the Border to participate in the taking of evidence on Commission. The accused is to have the right to attend the examination of witnesses, as well as being entitled to be legally represented. Some danger must attach to both those processes and, although Clause 5 and Schedule 4 faithfully implement the recommendations of the Law Enforcement Commission for the taking of evidence outside the jurisdiction, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained, the Bill also makes every possible provision—compatible with a fair trial—for the protection of witnesses. None the less, effective counter-measures against intimidation will still be essential if justice in these courts is to be done. So while recognising the untiring work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its high level of crime detection, the passing of this Bill does, once again, concentrate attention on the need for the police in Northern Ireland to have the manpower to be able to protect the individual wherever he may live and to investigate crime wherever it may be committed.
If I may say so, these requirements apply even more forcefully to the Republic where, after all, the numbers of fugutive offenders under this system who are going to be found will probably be the greater and where the Security Forces are rather less thickly disposed on the ground. But so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we know from Government Statements that the Royal Ulster Constublary numbers remain below target figures. The recent Report of the Com-mission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has drawn attention to the need to strengthen the criminal investigation department of the RUC, and it may be appropriate for these

969
and related matters to be probed rather further during the next stage of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough has expressed his extreme reservations. He lives in Northern Ireland and these measures affect him and countless others personally. He has expressed his extreme reservations that extradition is not possible. I agree with him that this solution is a second best, but although my noble friend has given notice that he might put down an Amendment, and although I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in asking why the Bill could not extend to the whole United Kingdom, as I understand the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the difficulty is that it is virtually impossible for it so to extend, because it would be so difficult to import jury trial, to give one example, into this system. But let us be clear that once this extra-territorial jurisdiction is operating between Northern Ireland and the Republic, if someone commits an offence in Great Britain, as contained in Schedule 1, and makes his escape to the Republic and it is clear he cannot be touched, there will then be very justifiable anger throughout Great Britain. I make no political point on this matter, because I also am supporting the Bill. But it is a point that needs further thought before the next stage.
As it seemed to me that Clause 7 dealt to some extent with this problem, so far as explosions were concerned, I attempted to follow the noble and learned Lord as carefully as possible when he gave us a most thorough explanation of the clause. If I followed his explanation correctly, the clause will enable those not only conspiring but also causing an explosion in the Republic, to be tried in United Kingdom courts. But if bombers in Great Britain escape to the Republic then they cannot, as I understood the noble and learned Lord (as the Bail's Bill is at present drafted) be charged with actually causing an explosion. The noble and learned Lord assured the House that this omission had been drawn to the attention of the Irish Government. It is a matter of the first importance to the people of Great Britain and I will revert to it again on the next stage of the Bill.
From this side of the House, therefore, we support the intention of the Bill and the determination of both jurisdictions
970
to bring to trial terrorists wherever they are found in Ireland. I know my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, are worried about the extent of the Bill. But may I point out in closing that to bring terrorists to book it has been necessary, in drafting this legislation, to include all extra-territorial offences in Northern Ireland as Scheduled offences under the Emergency Provisions Act, so that they will be subject to the wide powers of arrest and search in that Act, to be tried by a single judge, with these offences, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained, specifically excluded from the expiry provisions of that Act.
It says much for the combined determination behind this legislation that there has been agreement on this point. Although the Gardiner Commission recorded that the single judge courts in Northern Ireland have worked fairly and well, and it still accepted they must continue on practical grounds, the Commission recorded its belief that trial by jury is the best form of trial for serious cases, and that it should be restored in Northern Ireland as soon as this becomes possible. Few noble Lords would dissent from that view. It is one of the reasons why the Emergency Provisions Act is renewable. But about this Bill let there be no misunderstanding. Subject to improvement, this system of extra-territorial jurisdiction is being set up until people's lives are no longer threatened by terrorism on either side of the Border.
8.0 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome, with certain criticisms which have been raised, which the Bill has received. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will not traverse every point that has been made. Obviously, we will have to go into detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. But there are certain matters which I apprehend your Lordships would expect me to deal with at this stage. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was somewhat pessimistic about the extent to which this new machinery would work. With good will and real co-operation on both sides across the Border, there is every hope that it will work effectively. Certainly, it is the case that we pressed the machinery of

971
extradition as the most effective way of dealing with the problem, but the representatives of the Republic would not have that. Therefore, although this machinery of extra-territorial trials is not so good in our opinion as the extradition process, we think it marks a serious effort to deal with the problem of the fugitive offender.
The noble Viscount raised the constitutional question which has been put in the Republic that the complementary Irish Bill is bound to be challenged in the Republican courts on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and that a convicted person would succeed in an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is the case that, where there is a written Constitution, a Statute can always be challenged in the courts and it is not for me to speculate whether there will be such a challenge or what the result might be. But we are fulfilling our part with the present Bill. I venture to say that careful attention was paid by the Law Enforcement Commission to this constitutional question. For instance, in another field the Republic's representatives took great care in advising against the adoption of extradition, on the grounds that—as they saw it—it would be unconstitutional; but they accepted the validity of the extra-territorial method and, after all, the Irish representatives on the Commission included judges of the Supreme Court of the Republic, who ought, I hope, to have a pretty good idea of what is constitutional and what is not. Indeed, I understand that the Attorney General of the Republic is re-ported as having said that such a body of learned legal men would hardly pro-pose something unconstitutional, which is an attractive, but perhaps not necessarily self-evident, proposition.
However, my Lords, in speaking with a little confidence about this point, it is the case that the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 provides complementary legislation. It provides that a person who commits a fishery offence in the Foyle area in Northern Ireland may be handed over for trial in the Republic and, conversely, that a resident of Northern Ire-land who commits a fishery offence in the Republic may be tried there or sent for trial in Northern Ireland. So far as I know, the principle involved in the
972
fisheries field has not been challenged in the Irish courts. What is appropriate for the fish may well be even more appropriate for terrorists, or at least so I hope.
My Lords, questions were raised more than once in the course of the discussion that as the Bill relates, with the exception of Clause 7, in all its provisions to Northern Ireland and applies to Northern Ireland, there may be a feeling that this might be offensive to Northern Ireland sentiment. The basis of the Bill and, indeed, of the complementary Irish Bill, is the need, which is recognised, I think, by both Governments, to find a way of ensuring that a person committing crimes of violence in one part of Ireland should not be permitted to escape justice by taking refuge in another part of the country. This is the problem with which we are faced. The existence of the land boundary clearly contributes to the problem. The fact that fugitives are not being returned to Northern Ireland very bitterly offends sentiment in Northern Ireland, as the noble Viscount has indicated, and the Bill is an attempt to deal with that, which is the main immediate problem. The figure that I gave of the number of cases of extradition awaiting service was 38. I have no evidence of the figure being as high as the 70 cases to which the noble Lord referred. However, that is a point of detail.
My noble friend Lord Chorley—rightly in my opinion—indicated the technicality of some of the provisions. I hope that he is being unduly pessimistic in contemplating a field day for my learned friends in this House sitting judicially. Perhaps I may mention one or two other matters which my noble friend raised. It is not true that the Irish Republic's Bill relates to the United Kingdom as a whole. The extra-territorial jurisdiction, other than the provision in Clause 7, is only reciprocal as between Northern Ireland and the Republic. My noble friend also asked me about the repeals in Schedule 6 and whether they applied to the whole of the United Kingdom or only to Northern Ireland. I think that question is answered in Clause 14(5). Parts II and III of Schedule 6 extend only to Northern Ireland and the rest of the repeals in Schedule 6 extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.

973
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for indicating the support of the Opposition for the proposals in the Bill. He raised some questions about the effect of the Bill as a whole and in particular of Clauses 4 and 7 so far as offences committed by terrorists in this country are concerned. It may be useful if I again endeavour to answer the question whether the Irish provisions allow bombers who escape from Great Britain to be tried in the Republic for extra-territorial offences, if they get there. I think the answer is, up to a point, yes. If they were Irish citizens, they could be tried under the Irish Bill for a preparatory act done anywhere with intent to cause a serious explosion. That would include such a preparatory act with intent to cause a serious explosion in Great Britain. If the bombers were not Irish citizens, they could be tried only in the Republic for such an offence if it could be shown that the preparatory act, the conspiracy or the planning took place in the Republic.
Clause 4 of the Irish Bill does not, as the noble Lord pointed out—and this is a weakness at present which I readily concede—enable anyone, whether an Irish citizen or not, to be tried in the Republic under Section 28 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 for the substantive offence of actually causing an explosion. So one has the curious situation of the conspiracy to cause an explosion being dealt with but not the substantive offence. I hope that the Irish authorities will give further thought to this matter and that we shall be able to obtain a satisfactory solution to the problem in the mood that has now developed of mutual determination to put an end to violence.
My Lords, I will not burden your Lordships further. The Government are grateful for the support that the Bill has received and we must now look to the future—that the machinery can be effectively implemented to deal with what has become a pernicious scandal.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of Monday last be discharged and the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ST. LUCIA: SHIPMENT DELAYS
  ST. LUCIA: SHIPMENT DELAYS
  RACE RELATIONS
  RACE RELATIONS
  BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION
  BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION