Sitting of 15 July 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

DUNDEE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Comprehensive Education
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities have not now declared their intention of changing over to comprehensive education
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Seven local education authorities have declined to commit themselves to the completion of comprehensive reorganisation in their areas. These are Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Kingston, Redbridge, Trafford and Sutton.
    Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that very comprehensive reply. Is he aware that he has corrected the ill-informed and ill-advised claim of the Opposition that one-third of local education authorities have refused to reorganise their secondary education on comprehensive lines? Will he ensure that his Department puts the utmost pressure on these authorities to see that they bring the benefits of comprehensive education to all pupils in the secondary age group without any more delay?
    Mr. Mulley: My predecessor and I between us saw representatives of all seven authorities and asked them to put to their councils the points we made to them. They readily agreed to do this and we are awaiting their replies. While it is true that only seven have declined to commit themselves to the principle of comprehensive reorganisation, there are a number of others which will find it difficult to complete the reorganisation for a number of years.
    Mr. Townsend: Why does the Minister, like his predecessor, so dislike excellence in education? Many of the local authorities he has referred to were recently elected on a platform of maintaining these schools. Is he aware that in my part of the world, in South-East London, we have very wide support among all sections of the community?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman seeks to prejudge his question. I do not accept that excellence in education is an exclusive characteristic of a particular kind of school. One test of academic excellence is the attainment of high grades in A levels, and these are frequently achieved in comprehensive schools.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend realise that for many pupils the real difference is whether they go to a comprehensive school which was formerly a grammar school or to a comprehensive school which was formerly a secondary modern school? Will he exhort local education authorities to do everything in their power to make sure that the nominal equality of schools is made real?
    Mr. Mulley: Certainly. This message has been conveyed to local authorities. Detailed arrangements within a particular area are a matter for the discretion of the local authorities, but unless selection at the age of 11 is ended there will not be any kind of equality of opportunity in education.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Why is the Minister so coy in refraining from correcting the error of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? Is he afraid of her? Why does he not repeat to her the figure he gave me in his letter of 7th July that no fewer that 30 education authorities have made clear that they have no intention of going comprehensive before the end of the decade? Does not this mean that at least one-third of local education authorities are resisting this policy? Will the Minister confirm that they have a perfect legal right to do so?
    Mr. Mulley: Far from being afraid of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) I have the most harmonious relationship with her not only here but also on a number of committees. As to the letter I sent the hon. Gentleman, I thought he might raise this subject and I have brought a copy of the letter with me. Precise as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East always is, she asked how many authorities had not declared their intention to change over to comprehensive education. The 30 authorities have accepted that they should change over but for a number of reasons,
    1244
    including difficulties about buildings, particularly in rural areas, have not yet been able to put a date on when this will be completed. There is a whole lot of difference between refusing to accept a principle and accepting a principle.

    Direct Grant Schools
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any plans have been made to ensure that when direct grant schools go independent in 1976, parents of pupils at present at such schools will not have to pay more in fees than they would have done if these schools had maintained their present status.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Yes. This is clear from the Department's letter of 1st May.
    Miss Fookes: Does the Minister accept that it is not very clear to me? Will she please elucidate?
    Miss Lestor: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has had a copy of the letter. If she has, she will have found that it made the situation perfectly clear. We have done our best to explain carefully that in the direct grant schools which have elected to go independent the pupils for whom fees are being paid will not have to pay more than they would have paid had they remained at the direct grant schools. This is carefully spelt cut in the letter. I will send the hon. Member a copy with an explanation if the matter is still unclear to her.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ending of direct grant schools is likely to increase rather than decrease the inequalities in, educational opportunity unless and until all independent schools are brought within the local authority system?
    Miss Lestor: When we said that we were going to deal with the direct grant schools, we said that we would give them a choice to go independent or come into the maintained sector. I agree that if we are to get rid of selection as such we shall not eliminate inequality in education while the independent sector remains.
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will take to ensure that the grants.

    1245
    and capitation fees payable to direct grant schools during the phasing-out period retain their real value in the face of inflation.
    Miss Joan Lestor: None.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Will not the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend take another look at this matter? Do they not realise what has taken place since their predecessors pegged these rates in 1972? Even from April 1973 to May 1975 the cost of living increased by 45·9 per cent. That has completely eroded the grants that are given to these schools. Does the hon. Lady realise that this can only be to the disadvantage of the schools, the staff and the young people involved?
    Mess Lestor: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have taken into account certain areas where grants are payable. As he knows, pupils already in the schools—in particular in the schools which have elected to go independent—will receive grants and will be eligible for fee remission in the way that I have explained previously. As regards the other schools and whatever the truth may be about inflation, given that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are constantly talking about a cut-back in public expenditure I would have thought that this was one area in which they would have welcomed a cut-back.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the priority should be to maintain the real value of the capitation allowance within the State system, particularly in view of the fact that the present Government have made sure in real and cash terms that there is a higher rate support grant for that purpose than ever before?
    Miss Lestor: That is obviously right. When talking about a distribution of money that is available for education, one would have hoped to have heard as much talk and as much urging on behalf of the State sector as one hears about grants and increased fees for the direct grant schools.
    Mr. Mates: Will the hon. Lady now answer what she totally failed to answer in response to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes)— namely, that in the short term her plans for direct grant schools will dis-
    1246
    criminate against the children of poorer parents and in favour of the children of better-off parents? Is this not totally against her stated policy?
    Miss Lestor: I fail to see that the policy of telling the direct grant schools either to go independent or to go into the State sector discriminates against those who are poorest. They have the whole of the State sector, a sector which offers an excellent education service. If parents are concerned about the standard of education within that sector, the best thing they can do is to get their children into it and improve it.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend take positive steps of discrimination to protect the interests of children now being taught in substandard conditions in secondary modern schools, and make every effort she can to move rapidly towards a comprehensive system so that children who are now subject to selection can have a chance of real education which they do not have at present?
    Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend knows that I totally agree with her in that respect.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he received during the month of June 1975 from parents and other interested persons protesting against Government policy towards direct grant schools; and what replies he sent.
    Miss Joan Lestor: About 2,000. The replies have explained that the Government's decision follows from their commitment to end selection for secondary education.
    Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Lady reconsider the answer she gave earlier to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) in which she suggested that because of the interests of social engineering she will consider banning independent education as well as direct grant schools?
    Miss Lestor: I should not like to reconsider my answer—namely, that while there is an independent sector of education the commitment to selection is only a half-truth. This is why we are getting rid of direct grant schools in the way in which they now stand.
    Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if there were an equally articulate and powerful lobby in regard to education in general rather than on direct grant schools in particular, we might see an increase in the general standard of education, and that as long as the more privileged parents opt to take their children out of the State sector there will be deprivation in education?
    Miss Lestor: I agree with most of my hon. Friend's remarks. I wish to add that it is to be expected that parents whose financial interests will be affected by the Government's decision on direct grant schools will protest about the matter.

    School Milk
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce a decision on the reintroduction of free school milk for children from eight to 11 years.
    Mr. Mulley: I have nothing to add to the reply given to similar Questions by the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 17th June.—[Vol, 893, c. 1167–8.]
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend's answer is unsatisfactory and disappointing. Does he not recall the words used in 1971 by my hon. Friend who is now the Under-Secretary when she led a very impressive and vigorous opposition to the legislation? Are not the words she used then relevant today? Does he not accept that many of the children who are most deprived are those who come from the poorest homes and are the people we are supposed to represent? Does he accept that it is unreasonable to expect children to go a whole day with nothing to drink but water, a situation which would give rise to an immediate walk-out if it happened in a factory or office? Does my right hon. Friend therefore appreciate that my hon. Friends and I would like to see the immediate reintroduction of free school milk?
    Mr. Mulley: The immediate reintroduction of free school milk would not be possible because legislation would be necessary, and I am sure it has not escaped my hon. Friend's attention that there is a noticeable shortage of parlia-
    1248
    mentary time. We are not able to anticipate what may be in the next Queen's Speech. Equally, the economic situation means that certain restraints have to be exercised. It is against the background of these problems that we are nevertheless considering what we may be able to do.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it still a matter of principle on the Government benches to reintroduce school milk for these children at some time in the future?
    Mr. Mulley: I thought that what I said was fairly clear. I said that against the background of the parliamentary and economic situation we were considering what we could do.

    Open University (Fees and Grants)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he hopes to complete his review of financial assistance to students at the Open University; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will make a statement on the discussions his Department is having with the Open University concerning increased course fees.
    Mr. Mulley: My Department's discussions with the Open University are concerned primarily with the proposal to increase the course tuition fee from the academic year 1976. I hope that these will be completed soon. Financial assistance to students at the Open University is given by local education authorities using their discretionary powers.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Department have any evidence that those in the lower income groups are seriously disadvantaged in attempting to do these university courses?
    Mr. Mulley: We have no firm evidence to that effect but quite clearly in considering the position of the Open University I would not wish the fees to push courses beyond the means of any students. We have not yet settled how best to meet that objective, but clearly we need to put up the fees. They represented only some 10 per cent. of the cost in 1973 when they were last increased, and now they represent only 8 per cent. of the cost.

    1249
    I fear that, in line with practically everything else, we have to consider some increases.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is no added burden on students of the Open University who are so disabled as to be unable to go to an ordinary university?
    Mr. Mulley: It is because of these difficult cases that my noble Friend is having discussions with the Open University to see whether we can find a better way than imposing a pure flat-rate increase across the board.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend realise that an increase in students' fees might mean that more students will take one course instead of one and a half or two courses a year, and that that development might be used by the Open University as an excuse for not increasing the number of new student places, as is threatened for next year? In the discussions with the Open University will he press the importance of taking on 20,000 new students next year and not reducing the number to 16,000, as has been speculated?
    Mr. Mulley: I shall certainly convey those views, and certainly we shall want to secure an arrangement which will bring in a little more money without producing the kind of circumstance to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any increase in the fees for the Open University will mean that people on fixed incomes, such as working-class people and housewives, will have to terminate their studies, and that this will mean that the Open University is no longer an open university? When he says that local authorities have the right to award grants to students, will he bear in mind his Government's cut-back on local authority expenditure which means that many local authorities will not make this subject a priority in their spending?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not understand what the hon. Member said about working people on fixed incomes. The rate of increase proposed would be, at the maximum, very much less than the average increase in earnings and other income. As for local authority assistance, in the pre-
    1250
    sent year the rate support grant given to local authorities for education and other purposes is higher than it has ever been.

    Direct Grant (Abolition)
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to lay before Parliament the necessary statutory regulations for the abolition of the direct grant.
    Mr. Mulley: As soon as possible.
    Mr. Sims: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the present economic situation there is no possible justification for laying upon local authorities the additional financial burden that would be involved in taking over the direct grant schools? Does he intend to ignore the very strong representation made on this matter to hon. Members in all parts of the House? Is he aware of the grave reservations about the wisdom of his policy which exist among members of the Labour Party throughout the country, a number of whom send their children to direct grant schools? Will he abandon these ridiculous proposals?
    Mr. Mulley: I quite understand the very strong opposition which comes from parents and others who are getting substantial benefit from direct grant schools by sending their children to what is virtually independent private education at below the normal cost, an advantage which is conferred only in certain areas. There are only 173 of these schools, and it is by no means certain that the additional cost falling on local education authorities will be substantial, but overall it could well work out that what we save in grant will be sufficient to pay the additional costs. We shall have to see.

    Youth Services
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in order to increase the representation of young people in his present talks with youth organisations, he will invite young staff and volunteers from Young Volunteers of Merseyside.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 14th May —[Vol. 892, c. 115.]—if the discussions now taking place with youth service

    1251
    interests suggest the need for further consultations, to include other groups of young people, I shall seek to arrange them. These discussions are nearing conclusion, but it is not too late for the young volunteers of Merseyside to submit written evidence.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the nation's youth is anxiously waiting for him as the nation's youth leader-in-chief to make up his mind whether he is to have a youth policy or not, and is he aware that some steps must be taken by the Government to reduce the effects, which are found throughout our society, of negative discrimination against young people?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am happy to say that I have so long left youth behind as not to nurture the illusions which still possess the hon. Gentleman. It seems that he still thinks himself to be in the position of a youth leader. Perhaps in some senses he is. I assure him in that sense—not in the sense of being myself a youth, except possibly in spirit—that when the Government came to power we found that no preparation had been made for dealing with the problems which beset the youth service. Discussions are taking place with the purpose of enabling the Government to make up their minds in a manner acceptable to youth itself.

    Teachers (Employment)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the anticipated number of unemployed teachers in September 1975 and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about employment prospects for newly-trained teachers.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers qualifying this summer he estimates will be unemployed at the opening of the next school year.
    Mr. MulleyThe rate support grant settlement for 1975–76 allowed for continuing improvement in pupil-teacher ratios and took account of this summer's output of trained teachers. While it is too early to have a clear indication, there
    1252
    are signs that some unemployment may arise.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is a very serious reply? Does he appreciate that in spite of the generous rate support grant some local education authorities are cutting tack on education expenditure? Does he accept that some teachers are finding difficulty in obtaining jobs? Does he recognise that in areas with very old buildings, such as West Yorkshire, smaller classes are an important element in improving education? Does he not accept that the employment of teachers should have much higher priority than, for example, expenditure on defence and on roads?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of expenditure on education. As he knows, we have done our best to draw to the attention of local authorities the vacancies that now exist for teachers and also to urge them, given that they have been provided with funds, to spend their funds on education. I have no direct plans to intervene either in the employment of teachers or in discussions about the organisation of comprehensive education within local authority areas.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern about this matter in the heavily populated urban areas? Will he confirm that the effect of the cash limits to be imposed either before the House rises or after it has risen will be made clear at the earliest possible moment, so that local authorities with a heavy range of educational problems will know exactly where they stand?
    Mr. Mulley: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about cash limits, but the fact is that for the present year we have provided within the rate support grant sufficient funds, as we saw it after consultation with the local authorities, for the authorities between them to employ all the teachers likely to be available next September.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the problematic employment situation for teachers, and bearing in mind that Wales produces far more teachers per capita than other areas of the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea to advise pupils in Welsh schools not to go into teaching but to

    1253
    go into other careers where there is a greater chance of obtaining employment in Wales and a greater chance of contributing to the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Mulley: I shall get into trouble, not least with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, if I seek to give advice direct to Welsh schools, which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Roderick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with class sizes at their present levels it is disastrous to have any teachers unemployed? Will he think again about continuing the policy of the previous administration as regards the training of teachers and reducing the number of college of education places? We desperately need more teachers, not least to bring class levels to the size that we require.
    Mr. Mulley: At a time when there is a likelihood of some unemployment of teachers, it is not sensible to ignore the number of intending teachers and the number of teachers as of now. We have to consider the situation in September 1976. It was for that reason that I asked the advisory committee to consider again the proposed number of teachers for September 1976.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being extraordinarily complacent when he is faced with a teacher unemployment problem in the autumn that is likely to be the gravest since the war? Is he aware that the NUT estimates that there will be 5,000 unemployed teachers? Does he agree that part of the responsibility for this situation rests upon the local authorities which are not taking up their teacher quotas? I know of at least five which are not doing so. Will he tell the House how many local authorities are not taking up their quotas, and will he urge them and the other local authorities to take up their quotas in full? If they are to practise economies, will he urge the authorities to practise them on the kind of extravagances which we read about in this week's Sunday Telegraph?
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for at least getting his figures right. This is the gravest teacher un-
    1254
    employment situation since the war because it is the first time that unemployment among teachers has arisen since the war. Normally we have experienced a period of constant shortage, so I repeat that at least the hon. Gentleman has his facts right. I am encouraged by his suggestion that we should make representations to the local authorities, but he must also understand that his request that I should intervene in these matters is inconsistent with his objection to my seeking to intervene in the reorganisation of schools.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement on the effects of public expenditure reductions on his Department's capital spending programme.
    Mr. Mulley: I hope shortly to announce capital programmes for 1976–77.
    Mr. Huckfield: I accept that answer from my right hon. Friend but does he appreciate that many local authorities have still not worked out in detail the effects of the last round of public expenditure cuts? Does he now feel able to say something about the effect on his Department's spending of the proposed cash-limits philosophy?
    Mr. Mulley: That would be a rather tall order in answer to a supplementary question. The idea of the cash limit is simple—namely, that if local authorities pay wage increases beyond the sum agreed in the voluntary pay policy they will suffer deductions from the rate support grant which they receive in respect of those payments.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In terms of total public expenditure does the Secretary of State expect teachers to obtain the full £6 increase in the coming year? If so, what will be the effect on public expenditure?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot say what the position will be next year. The settlement date next year will not be until 1st April. It will be a matter for negotiation. I would expect the teachers—I may be wrong—to ask for the full £6. We shall have to wait and see.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: When my right hon. Friend considers his proposals, will he bear in mind the difficulties already confronting stress areas, particularly areas of grave housing shortage, areas with large immigrant populations and areas where there is a shortage of teachers? Does he appreciate that in some areas children are unable to receive full-time schooling? Will he ensure that such areas receive additional help and that there are no cuts in Newham, Haringey and similar areas?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend knows that in working out allocations allowance has been made for the factors he has mentioned. It is too early to know whether other authorities will require their full quota, but if they do not this should give the opportunity to certain authorities to recruit the necessary additional teachers.
    Mr. Lane: Can the Secretary of State confirm that depite the total cuts he will continue to discriminate positively in favour of deprived urban areas, which on the capital side contain many inadequate schools overdue for replacement or improvement?
    Mr. Mulley: I am well aware of these problems. Our policy is to continue to help as far as we can, especially in such areas as the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

    Assessment of Performance Unit
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken to establish the Assessment of Performance Unit announced by his predecessor.
    Miss Joan Lestor: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady that Professor Barry Supple of the University of Sussex has agreed to be the chairman of the consultative committee for this unit. My right hon. Friend will announce the membership of the committee when he has completed his discussions with the interested educational bodies.
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. Will she give an estimate of the time when the Assessment of Performance Unit will make its first report? The unit is vital if the standards of children are not to fall behind. We earnestly await her answer.
    Miss Lestor: It is impossible for me to say when the unit will make any report because we have not yet completed discussions, but the unit will be set up. It is about to be set up and it is expected that as soon as the membership has been completed it will start work, possibly in the autumn.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that certain suggestions concerning annual examinations in regard to basic skills would not be helpful in the present educational system? Will there be encouragement for teachers in certain schools to attempt some assessment of attainment of basic skills whatever the learning methods used in the schools?
    Miss Lestor: Any attempts at assessment can be valuable, as long as they are not undertaken on the basis of set examinations.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the hon. Lady aware that nearly six months have passed since her predecessor announced the setting up of this important unit at the suggestion of the Opposition? Will she guarantee that the unit will start work while she is still in her present office?
    Miss Lestor: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the proposal got off the ground very quickly after I arrived on the scene. I have every reason to suppose that the unit will have started its work before I leave.

    Brentwood
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he Will pay an early visit to Brentwood.
    Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. McCrindle: If the Secretary of State or the hon. Lady decides to visit Brentwood, will he or she take the opportunity to visit two excellent direct grant schools in the area and explain to teachers why the Government appear to be hell bent on eliminating two educational institutions which not only cover all social classes but which, by common consent, provide excellent education for all children who attend them?
    Miss Lestor: If I may deal with a hypothetical question in a hypothetical way, if I were to visit Brentwood I should consult the hon. Gentleman, but since

    1257
    we are hell bent on changing the system of direct grant schools they will no longer exist when I make my visit.

    Shenstone College and Bromsgrove College of Education
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in the light of the decision of the Hereford and Worcester County Council he will now make a statement on the, future of Shenstone College and the previously approved merger with the Bromsgrove College of Education.
    Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend has yet to be notified of the county council's decision.
    Mr. Miller: Because the county council's decision, taken last week, offered no recommendation to the Secretary of State, will the hon. Lady now accept that the Government's previous decision should be allowed to stand so that there will be some continuity in Government policies? Will the Government accept responsibility for that decision rather than put the matter on the shoulders of the county council?
    Miss Lestor: We have not yet been notified about what the hon. Gentleman says will be the county council's decision. We must take that matter into account when we are officially informed of these matters. However, I cannot possibly take account of a decision which may or may not exist until we have had an official communication from the county council in question.
    Mr. Freud: Since the hon. Lady appears to be saying that there are no statistics available, even though they appeared the other evening, and since the Government now seem to be shooting the pigeons that deliver the mail from the county councils, is it not time that the Department spent a little more money on gearing up the statistical services so that we may have up-to-date information?
    Miss Lestor: I have no evidence at all that the letter was posted or which stamp it had on it.

    Disabled Students (Facilities)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what
    1258
    information he collects from local education authorities about the facilities they provide for disabled students; if he is satisfied that all authorities are complying with Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 in this respect; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Joan Lestor: It is for local education authorities to decide what provision it is practicable and reasonable to make to enable disabled pupils and students to use the buildings which they maintain. Details of such provision are shown on those plans for new buildings for special schools and other schools and colleges which are submitted to my Department for approval. I am satisfied that authorities have a proper regard for their responsibilities under Section 8 of the Act.
    Mr. Price: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply, which we have had many times before. What reason does she have for being satisfied? If she were to read Section 8 of the Act she would discover that the word "shall" holds a key position. Will she accept that I know of a number of colleges which claim to have adequate facilities for disabled students but the facilities are totally inadequate and disabled students survive in those institutions only because of certain members of the staff who make heroic efforts to care for them? Therefore, the Act is not being implemented.
    Miss Lestor: Plans for new buildings have, as I have said, to be submitted to my Department and we have to approve them. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about this matter. We are all concerned that disabled pupils should have every possible advantage in education and in educational institutions. If the hon. Gentleman has details of colleges or other establishments which he believes are not fulfilling their obligations under Section 8, I shall be happy to receive them and discuss them with him.
    Mr. Hannam: Is the hon. Lady aware that paragraph 3 in Circular 13/70 clearly states that in many new primary schools and extensions to secondary schools provisions for disabled people such as ramped entrances and special toilet entrances for wheelchairs are not being provided? Will she accept responsibility for this?
    Miss Lestor: I have already said that if hon. Members draw my attention to areas where the provisions of the Act are not being implemented—and I do not doubt that hon. Members are concerned about the situation in their constituencies —I shall be pleased to look into the matter and ensure that the machinery for carrying out the spirit of the Act is implemented.

    Polytechnics
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to achieve more economical deployment of skilled teaching manpower in the polytechnics.
    Mr. Mulley: The initial employment of staff is essentially a matter for the governing body of a college and its grant-aiding authority; and the deployment of staff in post a matter for the institution itself. But it is essential that authorities and polytechnics economise in the use of resources, and I shall continue to promote this objective in every way I can.
    Mr. Hooley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a rather extravagant use of highly-skilled and extremely expensive manpower to tolerate steps in the ratios 1:5 and 1:6, because even the universities are prepared to put up with a ratio of 1:8? Will he look into this problem with a view to making the situation more satisfactory?
    Mr. Mulley: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Some of the difficulties stem from the terms and conditions for staff that were negotiated between the local authority associations and the unions concerned, a matter in which I have no status to intervene. I shall endeavour to find out whether there are any steps we can usefully take in the direction that my hon. Friend has indicated.
    Dr. Hampson: In the same way as the Secretary of State's predecessor acknowledged that the cost per unit in a polytechnic was no longer as cheap as it was at a university, as was once thought by the Department, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the strategy that the Department is pursuing? There is great concern that there is no overall plan against which, for example, cuts can be properly formulated. What is the
    1260
    Department's thinking about post-education? Will the Minister set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not believe that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be the best way of considering all the matters that we are likely to encounter. In relation to the detailed administration of polytechnics, we simply cannot have on the one hand academic independence and on the other freedom of discretion of local authorities if I am expected to intervene even in detailed matters, for example the deployment of staff. Conservative Members must make up their minds whether they want local authorities to have freedom of discretion or not.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are short of highly skilled people in industry? If the ratio of students to lecturers is too low in our polytechnics, will he make certain that more places are made availble to students so that eventually we get more scientists and technologists?
    Mr. Mulley: I understand my hon. Friend's desire that the polytechnics and technical institutions should train more scientists and technicians. As far as we can, we shall encourage those institutions to do so. At present I am not aware of any great under-utilisation of their facilities.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh on 30th June.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Royal Agricultural Show on 30th June on economic matters.
  Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh on 30th June 1975.
  Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters made at the Royal Agricultural show on 30th June.
  Mr. MacGregorasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic and agricultural matters at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh on 30th June 1975.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I did so later that day, Sir.
  Mr. Hurd: Does not the Prime Minister agree on reflection that in that terrible speech and its successors he once again missed a great opportunity? Is he aware that many millions of people in this country who now realise the seriousness of our situation are not in the least interested in his manoeuvres and compromises as Leader of the Labour Party but are still waiting desperately to hear the authentic voice and language of a Prime Minister addressed to the nation as a whole?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I failed to speak out on that occasion and on several others in that fortnight, I should remind him of what I said. I said:
  "The Government will take whatever action is necesssary to fortify the efforts which industry is so plainly making, as we have witnessed by the deep sense of urgency shown in this past week and more from the management confederation and from the Trades Union Congress."
  I then rejected the kind of solutions that have been put forward in some quarters, though not by the Conservative Front Bench. I said:
  "The solutions we apply, and they will not lack courage and determination, must above all be workable."
  That is what we did last Friday.
  In relation to manoeuvres I was concerned—despite the chivvying of Conservative Members—to get something broadly acceptable throughout industry. That is what we have achieved.
  Mr. Skinner: Why was it that my right hon. Friend changed his mind so suddenly after making his speech at the Royal Agricultural Show? Was it because a group of politically motivated sheikhs was threatening to withdraw its Arabian
  1262
  gold? Is it not sad—tragic—that we have a Labour Government headed by my right hon. Friend who are prepared to travel the same dismal, dreary course that was travelled between 1966 and 1970? Faced with either changing the system or propping up capitalism, is it not a fact that the Government have now decided to placate once again the natural enemies of the Labour movement?
  The Prime Minister: We did not change the policy. The policy announced last Friday was what we were working on. We wanted to get agreement on it. My hon. Friend said that we are prepared to travel the same course as was travelled between 1966 and 1970. It was very clear from my statement last Friday that we are travelling the same course as the organised trade union movement of this country. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is travelling the same course.
  Mr. Morrison: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his rejection of the use of unemployment as a weapon against inflation with the passage in the White Paper which states that
  "excessive pay settlements will affect unemployment in the industry concerned"?
  The Prime Minister: Because we reject the deflationary proposals of the monetarists on the benches opposite who may or may not have a majority of influence in the Conservative Party. We have rejected the idea that has been put forward—not specifically by leaders of the Conservative Party—in sections of the Press that we deliberately ran down the economy to a low level of employment. The whole world is facing an increase in unemployment today. Unemployment has risen less in Britain than in most other countries. We reject it as an instrument of policy.
  Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister explain one part of the White Paper which was foreshadowed in the speech and has since appeared before the House, namely, what happens if a firm refuses to pay more than £6 a week in increased wages to its working force and then has industrial action taken against it?
  The Prime Minister: I made plain last week that the firm would have the whole organised trade union movement on its side. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may laugh about that, but if

  1263
  they had paid a little more attention to getting such an arrangement a few years ago there might have been a very different situation today. Secondly, as I said in my statement last Friday, if there were a real threat to the policy which we have announced, we would not hesitate to introduce the statutory powers—we would do so with great regret, and I think that is true of many Opposition Members—that we would feel to be necessary.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the last few weeks the trade union movement has moved further towards voluntary agreement than ever before and that the trade union movement and the country would not deal lightly with Opposition Members who seek to exploit the nation's economic difficulties for partisan advantage?
  The Prime Minister: Sir, it is certainly true that the TUC General Council last week went further than the TUC has ever gone in peace or in war, as I said on Friday. The TUC has done that, and I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would recognise that achievement. Opposition Members who laugh about this are beneath contempt. The whole country, including many who voted for Opposition Members, will be shown to support the policy announced by the Government last Friday, and they will be as anxious as we are to see what alternative policies the Opposition can agree upon.
  Mr. Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the speech in which he rather obliquely foreshadowed the White Paper which has subsequently been published was greeted almost universally at home and abroad with some satisfaction as re-establishing the credit of sterling internationally but also with the feeling that the Government's policies would be immensely strengthened if they were accompanied by the announcement of cuts in public expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what is said about public expenditure in the White Paper, which I hope the House will be debating next week. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter and catches your eye,
  1264
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure he will have some valuable considerations to put before the House. Opposition Members at the weekend talked about cutting expenditure. What we should like to see in advance of the debate is some thought being given by the Opposition to precisely what expenditure they would cut.
  Mr. Torney: I have read the speech which the Prime Minister made at Stoneleigh in which he expounded at great length on the subject of the expansion of home food production. Will my right hon. Friend please inform the House what steps he proposes to take to ensure that adequate financing is available to support what he said at Stoneleigh about the expansion of food production in Britain?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who is chairman of an important agriculture group in the purlieus of the House, is absolutely right. The main part of my speech was about agriculture. I was referring to the White Paper which was published by the Government earlier this year and to the help to be given under that White Paper. The House debated these matters yesterday.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister about a reply which he gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)? Are we to understand that if an employer is driven out of business because he carries out Government policy on the £6 pay limit, he can expect no protection whatsoever from the Government?
  The Prime Minister: I made clear that if the policy is in danger—we hope that it will not be—we shall not hesitate to take legislative action. The right hon. Lady will be aware that there has been some discussion in the Press about the possibility of co-operative action among employers on this matter. I do not know what will come of that, but I have made clear that if there is a concerted attack against the policy announced in the White Paper, the Government will not hesitate to introduce further legislation to deal with the situation.

  TRURO
  Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Truro.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make an official visit, although, as the hon. Member knows, I am able to keep in close touch with Cornish problems.
  Mr. Penhaligon: It will come as a disappointment to the people of Cornwall that the Prime Minister cannot make an official visit. If he had been able to come, I should have liked him to meet many parents in the county who are extremely concerned at the state of the county's primary schools, the vast majority of which were built during the Gladstone era. Will the Prime Minister use his influence to secure that some of the money to be spent on super dual carriageways within 20 and 10 miles of Land's End is spent instead on a major modernisation programme for the county's primary schools?
  The Prime Minister: Not all Cornish schools were built in the Gladstonian era. I remember on one day in October 1966 opening seven schools. My sister was the headmistress of one of them. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have very close contacts with the problems of primary education in Cornwall for that and other reasons. I believe that the Cornish local authority, which for a time was regarded as not one of the most advanced, has proceeded very much faster in recent years under successive Governments, but there are still many problems.
  As for the balance of expenditure between roads and schools, hon. Members who represent Cornish constituencies are always pressing for improvements in the roads, including bypasses.
  Mr. Penhaligon
  The Prime Minister: Some are. The balance is a question of public expenditure, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be fair enough to say that in our review of priorities in public expenditure we have cut back sharply on roads in the interests of education and other priority programmes.

  EUROPEAN SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION
  Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Prime Minister whether he will take personal initiatives to secure unity of purpose and policy among the nine member States of the European Community in advance of the summit meeting of the European Conference on Security and Co-operation.
  The Prime Minister: I shall be discussing the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe with my colleagues at the European Council later this week. I hope very much that it will be possible to conclude the conference at the summit at the end of the month. I do not think any new initiative is necessary now to secure what has already been widely remarked on: the unity of purpose and policy which the Nine have displayed throughout the preparations for this conference.
  Mr. Macmillan: Does the Prime Minister accept that most of us in the House would regard unity of policy and purpose among the nation States of the Community as a very important part of the conference? Will he assure the House that in the follow-up of basket four he will take steps to see that that unity is maintained, particularly in the defence aspect of the conference, which has so far proved to most of us to be somewhat unsatisfactory?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. During the period of preparation for this conference there have been close discussions between the Council of Foreign Ministers and members of the summit, now that we are having regular summit meetings. At Dublin in March, although the discussions were mainly about renegotiations in relation to Britain, we had a special meeting on the evening of the first day to discuss the preparations. That has been carried forward further in the NATO Heads of Government conference and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, although no agenda is published on these occasions, that it is highly likely that this week, tomorrow and on Thursday, we shall be discussing the runup and preparations for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. As to the follow-up, the conference itself

  1267
  has still to decide its mechanism, timing and so on, but the Nine are already discussing this at Heads of Government level and we shall hope to reach the common purpose and unity of purpose referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to make clear to the House whether he intends to withdraw the Government's objections to those parts of the Bertrand Report relating to defence when he meets his colleagues later in the week, because that is a policy which has not been discussed in the House and which carries considerable implications for all of us?
  The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her return from her first attendance at the European Parliament. If I interpret rightly what she says, I think she is expressing the view which I have often expressed, and which is the policy of the Government—that we regard the EEC as exactly what it is and what the country has approved in relation to Britain's membership. We do not regard it as having a defence capability.
  Mr. Tugendhat: Does not the Prime Minister agree that his own recent experience with the Soviet Union suggests that we ought to be even more cautious than was previously the case in accepting that country's assurances? He came back from the Soviet Union after his visit telling us all that he had established a new and much better relationship and that there was an altogether improved atmosphere between the two countries, and yet one of the very few countries which actually supported President Amin during the Hills matter was the Soviet Union, and Pravda wrote editorials in support of that action. Does not the Prime Minister agree that this is quite contrary to the understanding he gave the House on Anglo-Soviet relations on his return from Moscow?
  The Prime Minister: Not at all. I naturally regret any articles of that kind. There is no ministerial responsibility in this country at any rate for what appears in Pravda, and there is no ministerial responsibility for what appears in the British Press. I reported to the House on the width of the agreement which had been signed, including in particular the
  1268
  economic co-operation and trade agreements. Since that time what I said in the House then has been abundantly justified and extended in that Mr. Gvishiani, when recently visiting this country, told us that there will be still greater participation by the Soviet trade corporations in the kinds of details I mentioned. He also mentioned some new extended deals and said that on the occasion of his vist he was signing four memoranda of agreement with prominent British firms. That was in full support and extension of what I told the House last February.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY)
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance, because you are are the guardian of every back bencher in this House in helping us to conduct our duties in this place.
  The way in which we can conduct our duties in this place or outside depends to a degree on the financial security of a Member of Parliament. We have been told over a long period that it is the intention of the Government to publish, and to make their recommendations on, the report of the Boyle Committee, which, as I understand it, was handed to the Government on 30th June. I want to ask you, Sir, or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is listening to this, how we might get this report—which is, after all, the property of the House of Commons, not only of the Government—and discuss and debate it, so that this saga does not drag on and on and on. Let us have a decision one way or the other.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Further to that point of order In order not to have to invoke you: protection, Mr. Speaker, of the very real interests of hon. Members of this House, may I say that the report will be published tomorrow, together with the Government's recommendations to the House. When Parliament as a whole has had time to consider those recommendations, I hope there will be an opportunity next week for the House to debate them and come to a decision upon them.

BILL PRESENTED
  HIGHWAYS
  Mr. Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Michael Shersby and Mr. R. Graham Page presented a Bill to amend the Highways Act 1959: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time to-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

BILL OF RIGHTS
3.35 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject.
—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Will hon. Members withdraw as quickly as possible? Could the conversations take place outside?
Mr. BeithI am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker. In seeking the leave of the House to introduce a Bill of Rights I am conscious that I follow in a succession of attempts by Liberal Members to do just this. I am also continuing a wider movement which has been gathering support from Members of all parties to establish and declare the rights and liberties of the individual.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) introduced such a Bill in 1969. My noble Friend Lord Arran introduced a similar Bill in another place in 1970. In a series of newspaper articles Lord Hailsham has revealed his conversion to the belief that we need a Bill of Rights. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Sir Keith Joseph) has stated that such a Bill ought to be part of the Conservative programme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General introduced into this House, when he was in Opposition in 1971, a Bill to protect human rights, and, although it did not go as far m giving legal force to basic rights, it showed a clear desire to define and formalise those rights.
In Northern Ireland, where deep distrust between the two communities adds to the need for formal protection of civil rights, the Liberal Party's former representative at Stormont, Miss Shelagh Murnaghan, made several attempts to introduce a Bill of Rights. These attempts were opposed by the Unionist Party. Since then—and too late to undo some of the damage which could have been avoided by earlier action on civil rights —our view has been accepted by the Ulster Unionist Party under Mr. Faulkner, by the Alliance Party, by the Republican Clubs and the Civil Rights

1271
Association, and it was given encouragement by the Gardiner Report. It was, indeed, an Ulster Unionist Member, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who gave the House an opportunity to debate this subject a week ago when he put forward a Private Member's motion on the need for a Bill of Rights.
In that debate both Government and Opposition spokesmen were open-minded on the proposal, and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who is with us this afternoon, speaking for the Home Office, indicated that Government Departments would study its implications and that the Government would welcome continued public debate on it.
I think that many hon. Members were struck by an influential lecture given by Lord Justice Scarman, in which he said:
"So long as English law is unable in any circumstances to challenge a statute it is in dangerous and difficult times at the mercy of the oppressive discriminatory statute. Without a Bill of Rights protected from repeal, amendment or suspension by the ordinary processes of a bare Parliamentary majority controlled by the Government of the day, human rights will be at risk."
We have bitter memories by which to judge that statement. We recall the immigration legislation under which it proved so easy, in a moment of panic, to tear up the rights conferred by British passports. Current discussions on the freedom of the Press under industrial relations legislation demonstrate how important freedoms can be nut at risk as a side effect of a statute with a quite different purpose. Our statute book is cluttered with measures like the Official Secrets Act, which at times of pressure of one sort and another went far further than was necessary in restricting civil rights, and which Governments have been lamentably unwilling to repeal or modify.
While we delay defining civil rights, the processes by which these rights are threatened become more and more rapid. The amount of legislation with which this House deals is getting ever larger. There is less and less time for it to be debated. The scale of bureaucratic interference in the life of the individual is ever greater. The development and use of technology in things such as computers and bugging devices poses ever greater threats to our rights and to our privacy.
1272
We can no longer sit back and see these processes eat away like acid at our civil rights. There are those who oppose the principle of a Bill of Rights on the ground that traditional British respect for freedom is a sufficient safeguard. Recent experience will not allow us to be so corn placent.
There are some things that a Bill of Rights cannot do. It is no safeguard against a tyrannical group prepared and permitted to seize power by violence. It is unlikely to be proof against a general disrespect for basic freedom and civil rights throughout the community, although the exercise of formulating it might help prevent that arising. What it can do, even in its most limited form, is to provide a trip-wire, a check, a process by which Parliament and the community are at least required to think again before abrogating a basic right, even when there is a simple parliamentary majority for doing so.
The extent of the check is one of the important questions to be considered. What form of entrenchment can the Bill include? I share the increasingly widespread belief that we should work towards a new constitutional settlement with a formal written constitution. To some extent we have begun this process by joining the EEC, and we are committed to new constitutional arrangements for Scotland and Wales and maybe for Northern Ireland. A Bill of Rights would form a natural part of the instrument by which we define the relationships between the various institutions of Government.
However, at this stage I seek only to establish a procedure similar to that in the Canadian Bill of Rights, under which no future legislation can be interpreted as overriding the Bill of Rights unless it contains an express provision to that effect. Although the courts would thus be enabled to review legislation to determine whether it was unconstitutional, parliamentary sovereignty would remain where a clear and politically more difficult decision had been taken that it should not be abrogated.
The other major problem is that of content. Although it should be easy to obtain agreement on the main provisions which should be included in a Bill of Rights, one can imagine that in the Com-

1273
mittee stage, in which we discuss the detail of each provision, the proceedings could go on for ever. It is partly for that reason that I feel that it would be better to take as a starting point something to which we have committed ourselves already. The European Convention on Human Rights provides a range of rights which we ought long ago to have incorporated into British law and to which we are already committed by international agreement. It would be possible to add to those rights. But I propose to make them the basis of my Bill and thereby to achieve their incorporation into our own legal system.
I hope that the House will agree that to have such a Bill introduced and printed will be a means of carrying further this very important debate on human rights. Should it be opposed, I hope that I shall have the support of all hon. Members in all parties who see a Bill of Rights as at least worthy of consideration as a means of safeguarding the liberties which so often are threatened.
In the debate the other week, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that
"from time to time in politics there were South Sea bubbles. In such instances, projects of an undefined character—projects of which the details are to be revealed later, as the South Sea promoters said—become the subject of unthinking and infectious enthusiasm before their content has been considered."
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to acquit me of that charge by not opposing this motion—and I am glad to see that he is not even in his place to do so—and thereby confirming my belief that we should have an opportunity to see a printed Bill of Rights setting out the provisions of the European Convention so that we might at least have an opportunity to discuss them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. David Steel, and Mr. Russell Johnston.

BILL OF RIGHTS
  BILL OF RIGHTS
  Mr. A. J. Beith accordingly presented a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 214].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [28th ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. John Ellis.]

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION CONFERENCE
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: The subject which the Opposition have chosen to discuss today is the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe—the CSCE, to add to the already tangled mass of initials in foreign affairs.
I recognise that this is not the ideal day to choose. I am sorry about it. But the exigencies of parliamentary business meant that this was the only time that we could have the debate. At any rate, we had during Question Time today a statement from the Prime Minister that throughout these complex negotiations the Nine had been working very closely together. We regard this as being of great importance. But it is a pity that the Foreign Secretary, who is abroad on an important mission, cannot be here, although I see that he is extremely well represented. It is also a pity that we have to debate this matter before the documents are available from the discussions that have taken place. But this was the only opportunity available to the Opposition to raise this matter before the Helsinki Conference, and we felt that it would be wrong for that conference to take place without any discussion in this House of the issues involved.
After all, they are very big issues—at least, they seem likely to be. A conference of 35 Heads of Government of the European countries, East and West, plus the United States and Canada, is a really prestigious one. I see from a Press report recently that someone has likened it to the Congress of Vienna. It would be wrong for this conference to take place without this House having some opportunity to discuss what is going on and what line our own Government should take at the conference.

1275
The difficulty is to know what has been going on. No doubt for good reasons of confidentiality, very little has emerged from the discussions. We hope today that the Minister of State will tell us as much as possible of the details of the discussions that have been taking lace.
The situation is strange, if not bizarre. Here we have an enormous gathering of 35 Heads of Government—probably the biggest conference of Heads of Government in history—and we know nothing about it. I suggest that if any hon. Member cared to ask a man on an omnibus in Tooting or Balham what he knew about the CSCE, there would not be a very clear answer forthcoming. What is more, we as Members of Parliament are hardly in a position to enlighten our constituents about it because we have not been told very much about it. In the view of the Opposition, we should be told a great deal more about it before the final conference takes place and before the final agreement is signed.
The other strange feature to me is that it appears to be agreed by all concerned that every single detail must be tied up in advance. No one will go to the conference without being satisfied that the texts of the agreements are acceptable to everyone. In that case, what are the 35 Heads of Government to do about it? It seems very strange to propose bringing 35 such prominent people together merely to endorse a document that has been agreed in advance. Of course, there will be opportunities for discussions in corridors outside the main meetings, but we must be careful in looking at an occasion of this kind to avoid the cynicism about and the devaluation of meetings of Heads of Government which can take place unless we are careful.
We live in a strange world. On television at lunch time today there was a programme about the launching of the Russian spacecraft in this quite extraordinary joint venture with the United States which apparently is to reach its consummation 140 miles vertically above Bognor Regis, which itself is surprising. But this is a very large step forward in international relations and, despite the strangeness of the circumstances, we must remember that what we are discussing today is deadly serious. Nothing matters more for the future of mankind than the relations between East and West.
1276
At present, the peace is maintained by the precarious balance of terror, as it is called—the knowledge of both sides that if they commit aggression they will commit suicide at the same moment. That is the present preservation of peace. It is not satisfactory, and it must be replaced as soon as possible.
Therefore, I say on behalf of my party that we are fully committed to the concepts of détente and of disarmament. Nothing else is rational. The only objective for a rational man is peace with his neighbours and disarmament. Therefore, anything that will promote peace and understanding between the nations of Europe and North America obviously will have our support. I wish to say that clearly and categorically at the start of this debate.
I must also say that this commitment to détente and disarmament does not mean that we should suspend our critical faculty. We must exercise a sense of realism in looking at all the measures which come before us. This House does not make a man good by an Act of Parliament, and we do not restrain aggressors by a scrap of paper. If any nation or group of men had the wickedness to conceive the idea of launching a new war, they would not be deterred by any considerations of a treaty. We must be realistic about that.
The only way that we can hope to prevent war in the future is by removing the desire to make war and by taking away the prospects of success from anyone who makes war. At the moment, the nuclear balance of terror does both. It removes the desire to make war, and it makes it clear that the prospects of success do not exist. But we must find a better substitute for the balance of terror to achieve this objective.
It is against that background that I consider the CSCE. I shall welcome it strongly if it is a contribution to peace and understanding. But the Opposition make certain conditions. First, it is most important in our minds that it must not be the occasion for the West to let down its guard. We regard this as fundamental. Secondly, it must not be just a matter of platitudes. There is enough cynicism among politicians in most countries already. The mere utterance of high level platitudes would do no service at all to the cause of international relations.

1277
Thirdly, there must be a fair balance between the two sides, whatever action is taken, in the practical results of the conference. Fourthly, it must not be a case of pushing the problem out of Europe into the Indian Ocean. Fifthly, we must have some confidence that it will work in practice.
If all these conditions can be met—and I believe they can—then we believe that something of considerable value to us and all Western countries will arise from Helsinki, but we must not let down our guard. There is a danger if this document is signed, as we believe it will be at the end of the month, that many will say that now is the time to reduce our defences and to cut back our defence expenditure. People sometimes say of NATO that there is peace in Europe, so why do we have NATO? The answer is that we have peace in Europe because we have NATO —and it is a tribute to NATO that we have peace in Europe at the moment. Equally, the same principles should apply to what happens in Helsinki.
A breakdown of this conference would heighten tension. That would be a bad thing and a retrograde step which we would deplore. But let us be clear that the signature of an agreement in Helsinki would not justify the standing down of a single soldier in NATO. The real way to disarmament is through mutual and balanced force reductions. That is the essential way. The warning of troop manoeuvres will always be valuable and useful but clearly to modern, sophisticated, intelligence-provided countries there will be no great change in the present situation. It may avoid the danger of incidents but is not a major contribution.
Originally, MBFR was linked with Helsinki but somehow it has not got very far since it was originally started. We believe that it is of the utmost importance —and I believe that the Government fully agree—to proceed further and faster with mutual and balanced force reductions, and I certainly hope that the signature of an agreement in Helsinki will contribute to such progress by providing the atmosphere in which such progress can be made. I hope that the Government will make that point in the course of the meeting which will take place.
1278
I turn next to the contents of the agreement, the so-called "baskets". First, let us consider the political basket. This, again, must not be purely platitudes. I have very little faith in clauses in treaties which say "We promise not to break treaties", any more than I have in clauses in the constitutions of emerging countries which say, "You must not overthrow the constitution". We do not get treaties and constitutions observed by these methods. When one looks at the matters to be considered under the first basket, one finds, for example, reaffirmation in conformity with the purposes and principles of United Nations of the following principles:
"Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; refraining from the threat or use of force; inviolability of frontiers; territorial integrity of States; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-intervention in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; equal rights and self-determination of peoples; cooperation among States; fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law."
All these, surely, are admirable principles but the public might ask, why has it taken all these years to agree on this? Surely these principles are self-evident to any rational person. Surely all these principles and obligations are already accepted under the Charter of United Nations, so what is it all about and why has it taken so long to come to fruition?
Therefore, we must look at the interpretation of these principles a little more closely and in particular, at how the Soviet Union will interpret the phrase about "non-intervention in internal affairs" and how they react to the point mentioned in the course of discussions about frontier changes by agreement.
All these are very important points on which we should be clear that Helsinki will be a success. First, on nonintervention in internal affairs, there can be a myriad interpretations of this statement, and interminable arguments about it, such as, what were the Russians doing in Portugal and what were the Americans doing in Italy? But the question is, does non-intervention in internal affairs mean no more Czechoslovakias? That is a point on which we should be a little clearer. There is what is known as the Brezhnev doctrine, though I do not know what status it has in Soviet Russia. If

1279
we are to finish this conference understanding one another—and there is no point in having it if we do not—does the Soviet Union accept that if, by some spontaneous development, a non-Communist regime should emerge in an Eastern European country, that would be accepted by the Soviet Union and it would not try to intervene? Unless the Russians will agree to that, frankly I do not believe that a commitment to nonintervention in internal affairs has a great deal of solid meaning.
Mr. William Molloy: A Chile in reverse.
Mr. Maudling: There are arguments on both sides. We shall no doubt be asked, "What would you do if a Communist régime were to emerge in a NATO country?" We all know what the answer would be on both sides, but it is a fair question. But to get the reality of progress, particularly in a conference of this kind, sincerity and frankness are absolutely essential, otherwise it is a waste of time.
There is a second point about changes of frontiers by mutual agreement. This, again, seems common sense. If two countries want to change their frontiers, why should they not do so? From our point of view, at some time or other there could be frontier changes made for a solution of the problem of the running sore in Northern Ireland—but would the Soviet Union accept the reunification of Germany by mutual agreement? We would like to hear the Government's view on what is meant by the acceptance of the principle that frontiers can be changed by mutual agreement. These seem to me to be the main points in the first basket, the political basket.
Secondly, economics. Obviously, in the long run the expansion of trade is of mutual advantage, not only to our living standards but probably more important to our understanding of one another and to mutual sympathy between peoples, which is the only long-term safeguard against war. Therefore, we would very much welcome anything that can be done to make trade between the Western and Eastern blocs easier and flowing more freely than at the present time. There are, of course, disadvantages in the different systems, but my impression is that
1280
business men, and indeed Governments from the West, both in Europe and in North America, find that they can do very good business in the Soviet Union. I always hear from my business friends that the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc will adhere to any contract that they make and that once they make a bargain they stick to it.
I am puzzled by the reference to "most favoured nation", because, as I recall it, there is the problem of how one protects one's own trade. We do so in the West by means of quotas and tariffs but in a Communist State the man who is in charge is merely told not to buy certain goods or that when he buys, say, textiles, from perhaps Yorkshire or Lancashire, these are to be marked up by 200 per cent. when put on sale in the Soviet Union. There are these different methods of protection used for the Communist economy. Therefore, in trying to reach agreement on economic problems I hope that we shall bear in mind the difficulty of protecting our people whilst giving them adequate access to the markets of the Communist bloc.
Thirdly, there are social problems, to which the House will pay particular attention—problems involving family ties, the ability to marry or the ability to travel for professional reasons, including in order to emigrate, and including that ability to travel for those who no longer wish to live in a country which they feel is not friendly to them. Naturally we, with our traditions in the House of Commons, regard all these personal movements of families and of people as of the highest importance. Equally important is the exchange of information, the ability of our people to distribute their ideas in the Soviet countries, and, on the other side, the ability of the Soviet authority and the Soviet media to express their own views here.
These are ideas of the greatest importance. We have the impression from what we read in the Press that a great deal of progress has been made in these matters. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us, so far as he can, about the progress that is being and has been made. Unless there is a substantial move, it is difficult to see what the balance of advantage is.
I come next to the balance of advantage, which is my third condition to

1281
accepting a Helsinki agreement. There must be a fair balance of advantage to both sides. We must not quibble. It is silly to quibble. In any case, the advantage to both sides of a really fruitful agreement is overwhelming. The Government have recognised and the Foreign Secretary has said that we cannot go forward to the signature of an agreement unless there has been some mutuality and fair exchange. Indeed, I suppose that is what a great deal of these protracted negotiations have been about. We would like to hear from the Minister today how the Government see the position at the moment.
My view, for what it is worth, is that it is difficult to define any tangible advantage to either side. We have asked for greater freedom of contact, which is of advantage to the individuals concerned, and for greater freedom of information. This will be of advantage to us and, frankly. of advantage to the East. It is mutual. I do not see either side getting an exclusive benefit out of the free flow of ideas and people.
It is said that the East wants more trade and access to the technology of the West. We want access to the markets of the East. Again, I do not see any exclusive balance one way or the other in economic terms.
There is the argument, which I have heard expressed by many people, including a number of my hon. Friends, that the Soviet Union will gain much from the acceptance of present frontiers in Eastern Europe. I am not as yet convinced by that argument. I should welcome the Government's view on it.
It seems to me that two problems are a little confused. The first relates to frontiers and the second to the domination of independent countries by their neighbours. They are quite separate points.
I should have thought that by now the frontiers had in practice been fully recognised, including Germany's frontiers. No one conceivably imagines that we shall try to change those frontiers by force. Indeed, I understand that there are provisions within the Helsinki agreement for the changing of frontiers, where desirable, by mutual agreement. Therefore, I do not see that the Soviet Union gains anything in practice regarding frontiers on the European map.
1282
On the domination of one country by its large neighbour—I take here the Czechoslovakia example—I see nothing in this potential agreement which would make such domination any easier than at present. On the other hand, an undertaking not to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, if fully understood, explained and set out explicitly at the conference, could be of advantage. Therefore, subject to correction in the debate, I do not see that the Soviet Union will gain either on frontiers or on the possible domination of its neighbours in the Communist bloc.
I want to make only two further points. The first is on overspill. Europe, though fundamental, is not the whole world. It is a fair point to make, as I saw made in the Financial Times recently, that it would be a pity to concentrate solely on Europe and to ignore the growing dangers in the Indian Ocean and east of Suez. Therefore, I hope that, so far as possible, anything which happens at Helsinki will not push the problem further east but will be a foundation for reaching similar agreements and détente in the further eastern situations.
We must recognise that throughout these discussions—they have been going on for more than two years now—the build-up of Soviet forces has gone on. They have more tanks, aircraft and ships, and they are wider spread throughout the world. During the whole time there has been a great growth in the strategic power and deployment of the Soviet Union. It is not a matter which can be disregarded when we come to a summit conference such as is being foreseen at this moment.
Finally, on enforcement or the follow-through, I read the wise words of the Minister in another place recently. We should not be too formal about this flatter. We do not want some rigid way of enforcing what is said. A rigid way of doing it will not happen anyway. The sorts of things said at this type of conference are not rigid. We should take time over this matter. We should recognise that, unless the agreement is carried through, it will be a great let down to public opinion and give rise to further cynicism about politics and statesmen in general.

1283
The objectives are clear. It would make a nonsense of the whole conference, to which the Russians are clearly committed, if it were not followed through. I hope that the Government will advise us on this matter. In our arrangements on the follow-through, let us try to concentrate on the substance and not get too enmeshed in the forms and modalities.
I believe that MBFR and SALT are infinitely more important for peace than anything which can happen at Helsinki. I very much hope that the Helsinki conference will mean that these talks will go ahead more effectively. The success of Helsinki will depend very much on what emerges from them.
Subject to that and to the reservations that I have made about defence, practicality and other matters, we strongly support the idea and the objective behind the conference. We believe that anything which contributes to détente and disarmament is to be welcomed, but let us keep our eyes very wide open.
4.07 p.m.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has dealt in some detail with the history of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and has, therefore, absolved me of the necessity to do the same.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to begin what I have to say by defining what I believe are the three questions which should be examined in the debate.
The first, as I understand it, is: will the second stage of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe end in success?
The second is: will that success be sufficiently great to justify the work of stage two, now being completed, being confirmed and endorsed by a summit meeting with all the implications which that occasion would carry?
The third question to which we must address ourselves is: if the conference has succeeded overall, has that successful result involved concessions by the West which might in themselves jeopardise our security?
1284
I want to try to answer those three questions. However, before attempting to do so, I should like to remind the House of two other matters. The first is the real objectives and intentions of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Secondly, I want to suggest ways in which the success of that conference in its second stage, now almost completed, ought to be measured.
The purpose of the CSCE is clear but, I fear, complicated. It is one element in the West's policy of détente. Its specific contribution to that general policy comes in many forms. It is intended to create the trust that ought to characterise relationships in Europe. It is intended to build the confidence that ought to exist between European nations.
The conference is meant to establish a code of conduct which will guide the nations of Europe in their relations with each other. Equally, it is intended to encourage policies which translate détente into real advantages for ordinary people.
Those, in either identical or similar words, were the purposes of the conference outlined in its first stage by Foreign Ministers of a variety of persuasions, including the then British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Those are the aims which the conference will attempt to achieve.
Before I move on to describe how successful the conference has been in pursuing those achievements, let me try to explain some of the things which the conference is not, but which it has been described as being over the past two years. The conference is not, as some people have feared, and, indeed, as today's Daily Telegraph has stated,
"in effect a peace treaty defining the post-war map of Europe".
In no way does the outcome of the conference affect the legal status of existing frontiers. It is emphatically not a Treaty of Vienna in the sense that the purpose and intention of the Treaty of Vienna was to draw the map of Europe for ever. That is not the purpose, intention or hope of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Nor is it the intention, as some people —people in Eastern as well as Western Europe—hope that the CSCE will provide an opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Indeed, that conduct is specifically renounced in

1285
the stage two texts which I hope, as I shall later explain, 35 Prime Ministers and Presidents will endorse in Helsinki during the summer.
Nor is it the intention of the conference to act in a military sense. In this context it may well be that the adjective or adjectival noun "security" is something of a misnomer which has deluded and confused many people who have watched and examined the conference.
The conference is not concerned with military reduction or weapon limitation. Discussions on those subjects take place in Vienna in the mutual and balanced force reduction talks. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing that has come out of Geneva or that may come out of Helsinki will, in itself, justify the standing down of a single soldier or the making obsolete of a single tank. I hope that what flows from the conference, particularly the impetus it may give to the mutual and balanced force reduction talks, will produce exactly that end, but the CSCE in itself is not intended for that purpose and could not legitimately have that result.
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the summit, which we hope will endorse the texts already agreed by the 35 participating countries, will not in itself be a self-contained achievement. It is important, and I believe it is of crucial importance in terms of relationships in Europe for the rest of this century, that it should provide, and can provide, a general framework upon which more specific achievements can be based. Perhaps its overwhelming historical importance is that by the signatures of the 35 Prime Ministers and Presidents—given, I hope, before the summer is out—all the nations of Europe will become formally and publically committed to a relationship which is based on co-operation rather than confrontation.
I agree that those achievements, if achievements they he, are, in the words of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, intanaible. That was always understood and always accepted. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, as he then was, when
1286
launching the British position during stage one of the conference accepted that the nature of the deliberations and of the outcome would not be material things which we could measure and draw, but they would be setting the tone for European relationships. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of a successful summit in a week or a fortnight's time the Brezhnev doctrine will be dead, that the reunification of Germany will be possible or that another Czechoslovakia could never come about. However, I can assure him that all those matters are a good deal less likely to be resolved in terms which are unacceptable to the United Kingdom than if CSCE did not take place. I think that the pressure of world opinion on those countries which have—
Mr. Churchill: That was some comfort to the Czechoslovaks in 1968.
Mr. Hattersley: I hope that as the years pass the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will come to face the world as it is rather than as he would like it to be.
The Government's task, which has been endorsed by the official Opposition, is to accept that making some progress and some achievement is better than no progress and no achievement at all.
I devoutly believe that as a result of the texts which I am sure will be endorsed by the Presidents and Prime Ministers in a week or fortnight's time, along with the pressures on countries to observe and respect the texts which they have signed, and the pressures of international opinion, the prospects of international odium will specifically and definitely reduce the possibilities of the sort of anomalies to which our attention has been drawn. I cannot pretend to suggest that the signing of the agreement will automatically prevent that from happening. Nor could anyone who launched the conference, nor could the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member when the conference was evisaged, nor could the right hon. Gentleman when he was Foreign Secretary and introduced stage one of the conference.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that

1287
point, I should like to raise a matter. I do not know of any positive act by the Soviet Union to suggest that détente is other than an illusion. Assuming that I am wrong, is it right that the Yugoslavs are any happier than they were 10 years ago?
Mr. Hattersley: I cannot speak for the Yugoslav Government. However, if the summit is held—it is my hope that it will be—the Government of Yugoslavia will be a signatory. In this matter, as in others, it is encumbent on us to accept the judgment of the Government of Yugoslavia rather than to think that we know better than they about what is best for their security. I shall develop in a moment the argument that one of our qualifications is to protect the interests of the neutral and quasi-neutral countries, and Yugoslavia is one of the countries involved.
The achievements are, in a sense, intangible, but they are in every sense real, and can be measured and can be described as successful. Measuring the success of the conference can be done in two ways. The first is the extent to which the texts that are argued over—some people would say agonised about over the last two years—and perhaps soon to be submitted to the Heads of Governments, actually endorse the proposals and principles of détente that this House and this country would approve.
The second measurement of success from which we cannot run away is the likelihood that those texts will be respected as well as accepted. The prospects of those texts being implemented as well as approved is the point that was raised by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the conference will lose its validity if it talks in terms of platitudes rather than policy.
I should like to make one point absolutely clear. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was never intended to have an international legal force. Had such a proposal been made, Her Majesty's Government of the time and the Government which followed would not have agreed to such a proposition. The implementation of the principles enshrined in the texts and eventually endorsed by the Prime Ministers depends on the pressures of world opinion, logic and, I believe, self-
1288
interest. If they work in practice, they do so because of the odium which would accrue to countries which, having signed them, then ignored them.
I turn to the review arrangement and the idea that after two years there should be an examination of how the texts have been applied, how the principles have worked and how the rules have been observed. That will focus, as it is intended to do, international opinion on those countries—and I hope I speak hypothetically—which have signed the agreement but have chosen not to observe it. I cannot assure the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that every word, every line and every comma of the texts that might eventually be signed will be observed. That is a matter of forces of politics, influence and power which goes far beyond the scope of the CSCE.
I believe that the principles enshrined in the documents are more likely to be preserved, observed and respected because of what has happened during the past two years.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Whether or not these texts are observed, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that the texts are compatible with the Brezhnev doctrine which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was still in vogue?
Mr. Hattersley: No, I said that the texts and their signatures do not mean overnight that the Brezhnev doctrine is no longer in vogue. That is a very different point. The Brezhnev doctrine remains something which is accepted and advocated by substantial forces in the Soviet Union. I also believe that it has in no way been enhanced, enshrined or incorporated into international understanding by the CSCE.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: That was not my question. Is it compatible?
Mr. Hattersley: The question of compatibility is not appropriate. The question of compatibility is: are we, by signing the texts and by Prime Ministers endorsing them, giving a credence to the Brezhnev doctrine which it did not have? My answer is a categoric "No". We are not doing so, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman ought to be assured on that point and ought to be content that we

1289
are not giving the doctrine of which he and I disapprove a status and importance which it did not previously have.
I turn to the texts, about which the hon. Gentleman has asked me and on which I can give him some help. I ought to tell the House, in response to the right hon. Gentleman's question, that we are now ready in Geneva—the 35 participating nations—to offer to the Prime Ministers and Presidents a whole range of mutually agreed texts, all of which reflect the Western view of détente in Europe. I hope, in a moment, to give examples of the principles which are proposed in those texts, texts already agreed by the participants, principles already enshrined. Before I do I ought to emphasise that there are still a number of outstanding issues to be resolved. Until they are resolved there can be no absolute certainty that the summit will take place in the summer and that the Presidents and Prime Ministers will assemble at Helsinki on the proposed dates.
Let me also make it clear that none of the outstanding issues is a matter of major contention between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. Each of them is of great importance to a large number of delegations. As the House will know, the CSCE proceeds by consensus. It would be intolerable if the wishes of neutral nations were overridden by the interests of the two great military alliances. Therefore, while these outstanding issues remain we cannot say with any certainty that the summit is an established fact. At this moment it is a hope. Let me explain why "hope" is the right word to describe the Government's attitude and intention. The Government certainly want a stage three summit in July or August.
The Government judge that it is in our direct interests that a summit should not be postponed until later than that date. The idea of a July meeting of Heads of Government gives great impetus to the stage two discussions. The desire to reach agreement in time for that meeting made progress possible on a number of extremely difficult issues. In recent weeks we have achieved consensus on a whole range of issues which previously seemed insoluble. I emphasise again that we have reached agreement on terms which are wholly acceptable to the West.
1290
If momentum was now lost, if for some reason the summit could not be held towards the end of July or the beginning of August, I believe that it would result in a substantial deterioration of our overall position. Issues at the point of formal agreement might not be resolved, while issues that have been decided might be reopened.
The souring of the general atmosphere might cause delays in the MBFR talks in Vienna, talks which we hope will make increased progress once the CSCE summit is held. We hope—and that is exactly the word—and believe that a meeting at summit level will be held in Helsinki on 30th July or soon after. The Government of Finland have begun to plan and arrange a conference on that date on the assumption that this is the target for which the participants aim and in the hope that that target can be met.
If—I use the word a fifth time—as we hope, the 35 Presidents and Prime Ministers are to meet there and then, let me remind the House of some of the principles they will endorse, and let me in doing so take an example from each of the baskets, as they are called, thanks to the influence of France.
Basket 1A, dealing with the principles that ought to characterise the conference, commits participants to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. It confirms that existing frontiers in Europe are not to be assaulted or changed illegally by force but acknowledges that frontiers can be changed in accordance with international law by peaceful means and agreement.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman reads out Basket 1A. Does it not become an absolute farce that countries where it is manifestly impossible to practice one's religion have been signing this document? Does it not show the whole thing for what it is, an absolute sham and charade?
Mr. Hattersley: I do not believe so. I believe that the documents will be signed, and I believe that hon. Members, I with them, will use every opportunity in future to say to those Governments to which the hon. Member refers and to those countries he has in mind,

1291
"Not only is this intolerable in terms of principle and morality but you, in Helsinki in the summer of 1975, committed yourself to a different policy". The hon. Member and I will say to those Governments, "The odium you are attracting in the Third World, among the uncommitted nations, in those countries which are confused about where real peace, justice and freedom lies, will so redound to your discredit that in your own vested interests you will be wiser to behave differently". This is an important ingredient, an important lever we possess.
Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the developing nations in Africa and the East will look on some of us as practising a form of hypocrisy when we look aghast because there is not freedom of expression and the right to self-rule in Eastern Europe, yet do not think that similar principles should apply in places like Rhodesia?
Mr. Hattersley: I am sure my hon. Friend and hon. Members will agree that we can sign those paragraphs concerning individual human freedom with a clear conscience. I agree with my hon. Friend about Rhodesia. The important point is that we can sign this and will use the signature by other countries in a less unequivocal position as a lever to bring pressure to bear on their future conduct.
That is not the only advantage of the texts which I hope will be signed. In Basket 1B concerning confidence-building measures there is the agreement that States will provide each other with clear details of the nature and purpose of their military manoeuvres and will ensure that observers are made available to check and confirm details. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may be right to say that the great Powers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact regard that as a rather insubstantial benefit. I cannot confirm or deny that. The Deputy Foreign Minister of one Eastern European country said he had no doubt that every country in the Warsaw Pact and every country in Western Europe knew whenever a general left central headquarters in any of the capitals. That may be so for them and for us but it is not so for the Governments of the
1292
neutral nations who take a positive and enthusiastic view of the need for notification of manoeuvres by Warsaw Pact and NATO countries on their borders.
The conference is as much about Sweden, Austria, Finland and the other non-aligned countries as it is about the great Powers. For the benefit of those other countries, if for no one else, this is a most important step forward.
Mr. Julian Critchley: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Russians have agreed that the CBM should include areas of Western Russia?
Mr. Hattersley: The Russians have included a specific parameter of 250 kilometres—[Interruption.] In negotiations one asks for artificially high figures and accepts what is thought to be a reasonable compromise. The figures we have accepted are a great deal larger than the figures we were originally offered and a great deal lower than were originally asked for. It is the view of ourselves, the United States and all NATO partners that they represent a reasonable basis for compromise. It is a compromise which certainly meets the needs of the neutrals, and it is the neutral countries whose interests are specially respected and need to be respected.
I now turn to basket 2—commercial matters. In basket 2 there is a commitment to greater dissemination of technical and commercial information and to the promotion of better working conditions for firms and their individual representatives. Every Minister at the Board of Trade and every Minister of Foreign Affairs is told that those are essential ingredients if we are to improve trade with Eastern Europe.
I should like to deal with the question of the most-favoured-nation clause. This treaty is not a trade agreement. Therefore, in a direct sense the most-favoured-nation clause does not apply. The text says that in the future relations between the 35 countries the most-favoured-nation clauses should be thought about carefully. The fact that we have signed the text and that the Prime Ministers have approved them does not mean that each of the 35 is the most favoured nation of the other 34.
Basket 3 is most important as it affects the lives of ordinary people in Europe

1293
most directly. That is where we have made the most progress. It includes pledges for the reunification of families divided by national and ideological frontiers. It guarantees the working conditions of journalists. It provides for the freer flow of written and broadcast information between Eastern and Western European countries. I believe that this is a practical measure. As part of my daily work I present to the ambassadors of certain European countries the names of families divided by nationality or ideology whom the Government think should be re-united. My task in obtaining those reunifications will be made increasingly easier as a result of the Prime Minister's signatures on this document. I already have a great deal of evidence of families who are now reunited in expectation of the Helsinki agreement and who would still be divided had the Helsinki prospect not been held out. I regard those as substantial achievements. Some, such as the prior notification of manoeuvres, make a positive contribution to trust and, therefore, to the security of nations. Others, such as that providing for the reunification of families, make a positive contribution to human happiness. For that reason alone I regard the conference as worth while. and a success.
Therefore. I offer an unequivocal answer to the first two questions. The two years of stage one and stage two have proved a success. Indeed, they have proved sufficiently successful to justify them being enshrined and endorsed by a summit meeting in the summer.
Although I answer those questions unequivocally, my self-imposed third question remains. Has the West made damaging concessions to achieve the overall result? I think that the answer is equally unequivocal. No such concessions have been made. None of the points about which I was asked this afternoon has lessened the result of the CSCE. Many points have improved it. No position which the West needed to hold has been sacrificed in the achievement of the overall result.
As the afternoon wears on, another fundamentally important question will be asked: does the existence or the occasion of the summit involve inherent dangers? Does it encourage the belief that more has been achieved than is the case? In consequence of that, does it persuade people
1294
that there is less argument in favour of maintained defence spending, and a reduced need to maintain our vigilance and protection? The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to our letting down our guard. I recognise that danger, but I believe that it can be overcome and avoided by describing the conference not as the achievement of détente, which it is not, but as an important step along the road to détente, which I believe it to be.
By pursuing the success of this conference we can overcome a second and even more important danger in terms of our defence and détente policies. We live in a world in which the Berlin airlift and the invasions of Hungary and of Czechoslovakia are barely remembered by a majority of the electorate. If those people are to remain—as I believe they should —committed to the Western alliance, the importance of defence and the necessity of keeping our guard up, they must be convinced of two points. The first is that détente has still to be achieved. Despite all the rhetoric, the meetings, the progress and the achievements which I believe will characterise the CSCE. there will still be a long way to go. If they need evidence of that long way to go, they need only examine the Soviet Union's increased defence expenditure year by year. However, that is only one ingredient of the message that we must give to the new generation.
The other message is that our pursuit of détente is real and genuine. Although we now insist that we must continue to be prepared and ready, we do not regard that preparedness and readiness as the way in which Europe should live for the rest of this century and the centuries which lie beyond. We actively hope to see a more civilised, a more compassionate and co-operative relationship throughout Europe, East and West Unless we can convince the electorate that that is our genuine purpose and intention, not only will it be cynical about our defensive capabilities and defensive commitments but it will be rightly and properly cynical about them.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is part of the general pattern and pursuit of détente. Without it I do not believe that we can justify our defensive posture. Nor can we argue as potently and as eloquently

1295
for our defence expenditure. Defence and détente must go hand in hand. I do not suggest that as a result of the Helsinki meeting in 14 days' time, or the Geneva talks for the past two years, our defensive effort should be reduced. I suggest that Helsinki can provide one step along the road to a better relationship throughout Europe. For that reason I believe that the conference and its intentions should be endorsed.
4.37 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I shall confine my remarks to those elements and policies which I find dangerous. Therefore my attitude will seem more critical than it is.
There is an old and somewhat odd saying to the effect that soft words butter no parsnips. I have often wondered what it meant. I think I know now. It means that soft words from the Soviets are not enough for security and should not persuade the United Kingdom to feel safe and its people able to relax either their physical or, what is perhaps more important, their mental guard.
There is a risk that even a small stagger along the road to détente could be regarded as a kind of appeasement. That is especially true when the soft words come in a declaration from a conference which, for all its three stages, is only part of that detente. These words should have been matched by progress in the other part, at the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna. But here the Russians are firmly fixed on proposals which give them a massive advantage in every form of conventional weapon and which give to the Warsaw Pact great numerical strength compared with NATO.
I do not think that we can regard the Helsinki and Geneva talks as a proposed stage or step which will give us great reassurance, although the Soviet Empire might inside its borders describe it as "Operation something for nothing".
The Minister referred to four main headings or baskets. The proposals contained in the first basket will be formally accepted by the world, by implication if not explicitly, on the basis that conquest is permissible for Communists. However, it is true that the Russians have moved from the position of regarding the bound-
1296
aries of Europe as immutable, in that they can be changed by agreement. However, that must be little consolation to those people who saw what happened in the latter stages of the war and afterwards. Despite this change, the conference has accepted that Europe, east of the Elbe, remains Communist, regardless of the fact that it is so only because of the force of Soviet arms. In return, we have accepted some rather vague assurances, welcome as they are, about human rights and fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of thought, of conscience and religion.
The second heading, "Economic and Trading", seems almost wholly to the Soviet Union's advantage. It gives them free access to superior technology which they have long wanted. If we look back we can see how much they have already been achieved based on the technological developments in Western countries. Unless we are very careful, we shall also give then trade benefits on extremely favourable terms. There may be some advantage to us and our European partners, but I do not find it very easy to detect.
On the heading "Cultural and Human Contacts", except for a reasonably firm undertaking on journalists the statements are vague in the extreme. Everything is presented on the basis, "We will do what we can" or "We shall use our best endeavours". Again, this is something, but it is not very much.
The danger in these main headings and the terms in which they will be presented at Helsinki in the third stage of the conference is that we shall be led to believe that Communism is no longer the enemy of a free and open society as well as the enemy of free enterprise and a mixed economy. If we forget that, détente indeed becomes appeasement and could become defeat.
The biggest and best basket of all the items is that relating to arrangements for the follow-up of the conference. I hope that the United Kingdom will concentrate on deed and action. Whatever else we may do, let us see that the countries behind the Iron Curtain put into action the aspirations signed at Helsinki.
Let us see whether the Russians will change and no longer seek to extend their political and economic influence in other Iron Curtain countries and no longer seek

1297
to dominate them and to intervene elsewhere as they have done in many cases before.
Let us see that there is real progress in the Vienna talks and that the Soviet Union accepts that the ball is now in its court and that it must make the first move. It is its superiority in conventional forces that frightens us, and it cannot be said that NATO represents the same sort of threat to Russia. Unless we get this sort of progress, then even the little shuffle, rather than a step, along the road to détente that will be represented by the conference will be a dangerous sham.
I hope that the Government will assure the House that they will recognise the importance of the European Economic Community in the follow-up. Surely this will be an opportunity to develop political co-operation among the nine member States. With a unity of policy and purpose, which I am glad to see was welcomed by the Prime Minister at Question Time this afternoon, and in the hope that this unity will begin to lead to a common policy and reinforce in the political field the economic co-operation, we must ensure that what follows the conference is of advantage to the members of the Community.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister denied that the EEC had any real concern for defence. Formally, our defence is through NATO; but there is an EEC concern, which has to be linked with cooperation in every way throughout Europe, between defence and the policies of the Community. Any possibility of the security of Western Europe being endangered must be of concern to the Community as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Maudling) referred to non-intervention in internal affairs and quoted the role of the Russians in Portugal and the Americans in Italy. He implied, unintentionally no doubt, that only these two great nations were in a position to intervene in other countries and that only they could stop each other from intervening. I hope that the Government will make clear that, despite NATO, which, of course, we all support and recognise as essential to the safety of Western Europe, the EEC has an interest in the future of the Vienna talks. It has an interest in defence policy as well
1298
as in the follow-up to the conference. That interest, though allied to, is separate from, that of the United States and extends beyond the boundaries of Europe because the security of Europe also extends beyond its boundaries.
I hope that we shall hear tonight that the follow-up to the conference, whatever its outcome, will be real, that the reality will comprise a joint effort by the nine EEC States and that we shall use this to help formulate a unity of purpose and policy in the form of a common policy for the countries of the EEC towards the rest of the world.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I suppose it is inevitable that, whenever we debate any aspect of European life, we are compelled from time to time to go outside Europe and to refer to this country's policies in other parts of the world. Mention has already been made of our policies towards the United States and towards developing countries and it is quite right that reference should be made to these policies.
It would be proper for the House to note some of the warnings of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), but I do not think we should be too downhearted and agree altogether with his Cassandra-like prognostications for this conference. The more we can talk with the countries of Eastern Europe and meet them as parliamentarians, the greater the hope that, later, ordinary people will also be able to meet with equal frequency. This would make a contribution to the achievement of détente which we all wish to see achieved as swiftly as possible.
As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said in opening the debate the joint venture which we all trust will be successful, involving the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft is an example of the sort of co-operation which must and can take place. It is not the result of some casual agreement between the Americans and the Russians to link these craft in the heavens, 155 miles above Bognor Regis. The exploit follows from a tremendous amount of sensible cooperation between the two countries. The venture has been free of espionage, which has bedevilled international relations since the war. Russian scientists, technicians

1299
and technologists have been working amicably with their American counterparts to bring about this scientific achievement. If only this sort of co-operation could be extended to other areas we should move towards the ultimate goal of complete civilisation for mankind.
It is within Europe that we can show the lead which is desperately needed in securing co-operation, and for that reason I welcome the conference on security and co-operation. It will not be a magnificent achievement which will of itself set us on the road to sanity, but it will represent one small link in the chain which decent people are trying to forge to bring the world together in mutual understanding.
The basket system seems to be a complicated and difficult way of working. I had experience of it when I attended the IPU conference on these issues last January in Helsinki. I came to the conclusion that it offered an advantage to both sides. It was possible to put into departments or baskets the various problems facing Europe.
It is worth stressing to the right hon. Member for Farnham that Britain should not be seen as being concerned only with itself and the other eight members of the EEC. There are those in Eastern Europe who would be only too happy for us to adopt that approach. It would be dangerous for Britain to take that view and to forget that it had friends and allies in Western Europe outside the Common Market. We have very strong friends in the Common Market who cannot stomach NATO and have got out of it. These issues must be borne firmly in mind when we consider the question of our security.
One of the things we stressed at the Belgrade meeting of the IPU this year was the need not merely for free movement of people in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc but that if there were to be a genuine understanding between East and West, a start could perhaps be made by allowing business representatives to travel much more freely in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
I was criticised for advancing this view and I was asked why, as a democratic Socialist I should be concerned that the business men of Britain, the representatives of the big firms, should have more freedom to move around in Eastern bloc
1300
countries. I pointed out that those business men were the representatives of skilled British artisans. It was impossible for every working man from the benches, the mines, and the factories to go personally to sell the products he made, and that the business men were their representatives who could demonstrate how much the British working man and British industry had to offer and how wise it was to purchase their work.
Exporting is not only good for the economy, it is good for international relations, and I hope that in the discussion on economic matters it will be stressed that both sides of the House of Commons want a much freer attitude adopted towards business representatives who travel in Eastern Europe. If that freer attitude were adopted, the day might come when people from this country, who at present go for their holidays to France, Germany and Italy, would feel safe to take them in Eastern bloc countries.
What we have to overcome is that which thwarts all our endeavours and which might well thwart the endeavours of those in Eastern Europe who genuinely wish to see détente—namely, the fear that we shall produce something in the way of armaments which will be superior and more devastating than that which the other side possesses. When I look at the ordinary people in my constituency and throughout the country, I cannot imagine that as they go about their work and play the matter that occupies their minds is how they can wipe out the Soviet Union. Equally, I do not believe that the millions in the Soviet Union are thinking of how they can wipe out the West. It is probably fair to say that it might be a fair criticism of all politicians, both East and West, that they are out of touch with the genuine feelings of the people whom they represent. I can understand some people advancing that argument, although if I had time I would like to analyse it.
If we are to try to bring about détente effectively and if we can in confidence persuade countries in the Eastern bloc to reduce their arms, it will be possible, once we have every assurance that it is safe to do so, to lower our guard. I use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. Equally, it would he very dangerous to say that as Russia is spending millions and millions of pounds

1301
on defence we must inflict on ourselves a form of economic polio. That could be just as devastating as some form of physical invasion. We must beware of that danger.
I wish the conference to be a success. I believe that this country has a great deal to offer not only to Europe but to the world. Even if the conference goes only half way towards what it wants to achieve, that in itself will be a step forward towards the creation of an atmosphere within which we can work amicably and sensibly in bringing about what I believe everybody wants in both Eastern and Western European countries. What we do not know yet is how that can he achieved. It is only by talking to one another and by discussing problems with one another that we might find the solution and move towards the desired goal. It is in that context that I believe that these forms of conference are well worth while. I believe that ultimately they will make a contribution to the restoration of sanity in Europe and perhaps thereafter in the rest of the world.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Thus far in the debate there has been a consensus of view. First, it is agreed that the CSCE is unlikely to have a great impact on security but may well lead to useful advances in co-operation on a European scale. Secondly, it is agreed that it cannot be looked upon in isolation. The security aspect must he concentrated upon through the SALT talks and the MBFR talks, which themselves have unfortunately so far had disappointing results.
It is worth noting at the beginning that if the Soviet Union is sincere in its desire to strengthen détente, it has clearly in the MBFR talks the opportunity to demonstrate its sincerity by displaying a more forthcoming response to the Western proposal that there should be cuts on both sides in Central Europe and some kind of common ceiling. It is there that the likelihood of an improvement in security on a lower scale in Europe is likely to happen.
It is equally important to emphasise that we cannot separate East-West security within Europe from the rest of the world. It would be unreasonable for the countries in Europe to accept a situation in Europe and at the same time to
1302
ignore what is going on in the Indian Ocean, what we read is going on in Somalia and what we know is going on in Uganda. Incidentally, it would be useful if the next time Jack Jones visits the Soviet Embassy he mentions Uganda and asks what justification the Soviet Union can have for arming General Amin. That would be a useful contribution for Mr. Jones to make.
The Soviet Union's original objective in pushing for a security conference was to obtain formal ratification of the status quo in post-war Europe. The West has long mistrusted this approach. Indeed, we went through a long process of mistrust which, to some extent, the Minister has outlined. The Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 undoubtedly was an event which delayed the CSCE, although for me the 1968 invasion was nothing like as important as the 1947 take-over of Czechoslovakia. As a Liberal, that event is embedded in my mind, in that the Liberal-Social-Democratic alliance is the one most susceptible to that kind of take-over for political reasons. Therefore, I am deeply suspicious of whatever alluring words we hear from the East.
Subsequently we had Ostpolitik, and in some ways the CSCE is the conference after the event, the acceptance of Ostpolitik and the acceptance of reality. However, I must say that at one stage I did not like the Minister's phraseology. Although we should not chide Ministers for their phraseology in response to interjections, when their words are not as considered as they might otherwise be, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should accept the world as it is rather than as we would hope it to be. As a politician, I believe that we should always look at the world as we would hope it to be. I am not of the view that we should accept things as they are simply because that is the real-politik of the matter.
Since the conference began, the balance of power as between East and West has shifted considerably to the West's disadvantage. There has been the Greek-Turkish conflict on the southern flank of NATO and the events in Portugal. There has been the effect upon the United States of its defeat in Vietnam. At the same time, we have had the Soviet Union

1303
continuing to expand its conventional military forces while the West—that includes Great Britain specifically—has been making defence cuts. That has shifted the military balance in Europe heavily to the advantage of the Eastern Bloc.
I note that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) shakes his head in dissent. The reason that this debate has been so consensus-like thus far has been that we have not yet had a contribution from the element that the hon. Gentleman represents. However, we are entitled to ask what the Soviet Union means by détente if it has definitely and consciously continued to add to the strength of its conventional forces.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the West has vast superiority in nuclear terms and that the Soviet Union can well argue that it has to have superiority in conventional terms? Is not that a fact?
Mr. Johnston: I am not at all clear as to the logic of that. We all know and it was the Minister who remarked upon it at some stage, that once one is involved in a nuclear conflict it does not matter how many nuclear weapons one has because the whole balloon goes up. I do not see how we can use that as a justification for increasing conventional arms. So although détente, in the sense of a relaxation of tension between East and West, is warmly to be welcomed, we must be wary of confusing the illusion of détente with the reality of détente.
We do not know very much about the agenda for the forthcoming conference and the baskets which have been mentioned. We must depend on unofficial sources rather than on specific communications.
I believe that two main points emerge from the situation. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) that the Community countries have demonstrated their capacity for cohesion. I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that the Community is not the whole of Europe. But it is a desirable achievement that the Community countries have demonstrated that capacity, particularly when we
1304
realise that France does not even take part in the MBFR talks. That surely shows a move towards stability.
Basket 1 is worth referring to because of the military confidence-building measures which were an initiative of a British Conservative Government, which were continued by a British Labour Government, and which indeed represent a degree of consensus on these matters which both sides of the House have followed, including the Liberal Party. That package also contains items such as the prior notification of force manoeuvres and the exchange of military observers. It looks to be a possibility for agreement. I am much more interested in what is possible than in any rhetoric.
On basket 2, I cannot add very much to what has been said, except to make the rather pessimistic point that it is still possible to argue, I am afraid, that more can be achieved on a bilateral basis than on an East-West basis. We have, after all, done it ourselves. That has been the experience so far.
Basket 3, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, is the most important basket from the West's point of view. It is true, as the Minister said quite clearly, that the concessions that we are likely to achieve as a result of CSCE are, relatively speaking, minor. I refer to the reunification of families, inter-marriage across frontiers, improved conditions for Western journalists—matters which appear to us as minor because we regard them as normal, but which, nevertheless, are very much to be welcomed because they represent gains.
We have now reached the crunch in détente and we face a huge dilemma. We must face the fact that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc is a monolithic and autocratic system which exists, and is able to exist, only because it denies the freedom which we have in mind when we talk about the improvement of human contacts. Therefore, the Soviet Union in maintaining its own system can go only so far towards the West. It can yield only so much to the West without in turn creating the risk of destabilising its own internal situation. There we reach the dilemma. From the point of view of the free, liberal, Western democrat, we want the East to release its tensions and to reach towards

1305
the freedoms that we possess. But if this happens, it will result in a highly volatile situation such as may happen in Yugoslavia when Tito dies. This will not lead to the security and stability of which we are talking but to a highly unstable, volatile situation.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that there would be no interference in any nation's internal affairs. What does that mean? It obviously means that we do not send armies into other countries that we do not like. Does it mean, however, that we do not comment on other countries' internal affairs? I do not think it can mean that any more—and indeed it should not mean that. I am tired of receiving answers from the Foreign Office informing me that a certain matter is a question not for the Foreign Office but for the internal affairs of whatever country it may be. It is the duty of the democratic West, and particularly of the democratic country in which we live, to express its views about matters which it does not like and of which it disapproves and regards as being in contravention of human rights. But—and it is a big "but" —we must face the fact that if the monolithic and in some cases tyrannical system of the East ever breaks up, it will cause immense tensions.
Finally, clearly the follow-up will not be legally binding. I agree with the view that there is no point in creating some special machinery following the conference. I do not regard that as a good idea because it could develop into a propaganda machine. But the idea of a follow-up after two years, in which period one can assess reasonably and calmly the results of the conference, is the right way to proceed.
On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I welcome any steps towards a genuine détente in Europe and beyond. Nevertheless, Soviet defence spending, linked to Soviet political rhetoric, casts the gravest doubts on the sincerity of the Soviet Union about détente, and it is of the greatest importance not to confuse the symbols of détente with its realities.
I hope that we shall look back to the CSCE not as a symbol but as a reality —as a milestone in easing tensions between two very different political systems.
1306
We shall not achieve a relaxation of tension which will benefit East and West unless we clearly understand the risks and maintain throughout the highest degree of realism.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Churchill: All those who love peace and democracy—and I include the overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House—want with a deep passion to see achieved a genuine détente and a genuine end to the arms race. The agreement which we shall be asked to sign following the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe must be judged by one criterion: is this genuine détente or is it a fraud?
I speak as one who believes in close relations and understanding between the Soviet Union and ourselves. I also believe that such relations can bring forth successful agreement on specific and clear fields of common interest. We have seen this in the Partial Test-ban Treaty and in the Non-proliferation Agreement. But the CSCE agreement, as outlined so far, does not fall into that category. It is broad and in many respects unspecific. Therefore, it should be looked at with care by those who will be signing on behalf of the democratic countries.
The meeting of 35 Heads of Government will take place against a background of continued escalation of the arms race by the Soviet Union—not only in nuclear weapons but also in conventional arms. I should like to cite but one specific example: tank production in the Soviet Union today is running at 5,000 tanks a year—ten times the tank production of the United States. What is the purpose of this massive boost to the arms race?
The conference will also be taking place against the background of the substantial and recent victories of the Soviet Union and her allies in South East Asia, and what I believe to be clear interference by the Soviet Union in the internal affairs of our NATO ally, Portugal.
I have recently returned from Portugal where the battle for freedom and democracy is raging. It is not being fought with weapons, as yet, but none the less it is being fought in the factories, the trade unions and within the senior councils of the Armed Forces Movement. The verdict of the Portuguese electorate, 94 per cent. of whom voted—would that

1307
we could get such a turn out in our elections—has been pushed aside by the military junta of Portugal as being of no consequence, even though the Portuguese people voted more than four to one in favour of democracy and against the Communists who, with their allies, achieved only 17 per cent. of the popular vote.
However, amid the apparent chaos of the political situation in Portugal there are powerful forces working towards a clear and positive objective. They are relentlessly and remorselessly taking advantage of the situation at every turn in the crisis.
The Portuguese Communist Party is, perhaps, the closest of all the Western Communist parties to the Soviet Union. There is a close relationship between it and Moscow. Shortly before the elections, Mr. Brezhnev saw the No. 2 in the PCP, Dr. Octavio Pato, and told him that he had to accept the verdict of the electorate, at least in the short term. At a time when we are being asked to accept from the Soviet Union the principle of non-interference, which presumably means that the Soviet Union will bind itself also to that principle, we should examine the realities. In the recent elections the Portuguese Communist Party was able to display ten times as many posters as all the democratic parties put together and today the Socialist Party and the other democratic parties are bankrupt but the Portuguese Communist party, thanks to cash from outside—and we all know where that comes from—is able to employ 2,000 full-time paid officials. This is a clear sign of interference by the Soviet Union in the domestic affairs of a NATO country.
Mr. Newens: Would the hon. Gentleman equally strongly condemn the interference by the United States through the CIA in, for example, the internal affairs of Chile and many other countries, including Iran? Will he make it clear that he is being fair and that he condemns that sort of influence equally strongly when it is carried out by the forces of the United States?
Mr. Churchill: It is particularly important that we should not tolerate a situation in which interference is totally
1308
one sided. This is the reality of the situation today in Portugal.
An interest, which goes much deeper than that of a passive observer is being taken by the East in this affair. The countries of the West are standing aside and not even exerting themselves in a proper democratic way in order to help the domestic parties that are struggling for survival in Portugal. I shall cite but one example. I have been advised by no fewer than two heads of the democratic parties in Portugal that the Portuguese Service of the BBC is at present putting out broadcasts with a distinct pro-Communist bias, especially in the news programme at 11 o'clock at night. This is listened to by a large number of Portuguese because their own Press is totally controlled by the Communists—not only the eight principal daily pewspapers, but also the television and radio networks. This is their only means of getting truthful outside information which they cannot otherwise obtain. This is one way in which the West could be helping. I am not suggesting that the CIA should intervene in Portugal but, equally, I do not believe that it is for the KGB or anyone else to interfere in the internal affairs of a NATO member State.
Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has clearly said that the BBC has been beaming out Communist propaganda to Portugal in its overseas services. This is an extremely serious allegation. Can he substantiate it?
Mr. Churchill: I have represented what was said to me by two leaders of the democratic parties in Lisbon only two weeks ago. One of them, Dr. Mario Soares the Socialist Party leader, expresesd his substantial concern at the content of those programmes. He stressed the particular importance of this in the present situation where, as he put it, the diet that is available to the ordinary Portuguese people today amounts to little more than Pravda and lzvestia. Therefore, particular importance is attached to what is being broadcast from London. Even if we cannot be helpful to the democratic parties in Portugal, the least we can do is not to help their enemies.
The implications of a Communist take over in Portugal, which is a clear possibility, would be very grave for NATO.

1309
On top of the Cyprus crisis, which has neutralised the Turks and the Greeks in the NATO Alliance, and on top of the Communist gains in the recent local government elections in Italy, it would mark the total collapse of the southern flank of NATO and would give free rein to Soviet power from the Azores through the Mediterranean to the Middle East.
In the CSCE Agreement the Soviet union is seeking to gain from the West formal acknowledgment of its conquests in the Second World War and, above all, its right to control indefinitely some 200 million people of Central and Eastern Europe who, before that war, were not under Soviet control. What, we may ask, are the feelings of those people? Unless the Soviet Union ceases forthwith its direct interference in Portugal, unless it is prepared to take fairly substantive—while recognising that we cannot ask too much—steps to liberalise and democratise its own society, unless it is, above all, prepared to give an undertaking that there will be no more Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and acknowledge that to have been a mistake, by going to this summit meeting and by putting their hands on behalf of the free people of the world to this document the leaders of the Western democracies could be in danger of signing a second Munich Agreement, signing away the rights of millions of people in far-away lands and, above all, duping their own people into believing that genuine détente and "peace in our time" had been achieved.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Tam Da1yell: As one who submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure to the effect that in three-hour debates speakers should be short, I will try to follow that precept.
I go back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said about reunification of families in anticipation of Helsinki. That means something in my constituency. In the 1940s the Polish Armoured Division was stationed in Fife and West Lothian, with the result that many Polish men have made their livelihood amongst us and now, towards the end of their lives, they want for personal reasons to return to Poland on a visit with their families. Therefore, what my right hon. Friend said, and the general
1310
feeling of détente, are important to some hundreds of my constituents.
I take this opportunity of thanking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its expedite behaviour whenever personal problems are raised in these often difficult matters relating to Poland or East Germany, and to comment that, perhaps not before time, I am glad that the British Foreign Secretary is in Poland. We have rather missed out in senior Ministers going to Poland, compared with the French and West Germans.
I wish to ask three blunt questions about the Russians. The first concerns Portugal. The House will not expect me to follow the extreme speech made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). My hon. Friend for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and I saw Admiral Coutinho as we stopped off in Lisbon, on return from the IPU visit to Brazil. I hope that the Government will make it clear that it would be unwise for the Russians to try to manipulate a foothold in Portugal because that would cause serious problems in NATO and the West.
Secondly, I wish to see discussed the question of the Indian Ocean. Many of us who have a history of friendship with the Soviet Union are bothered, to put it mildly, by what we hear about an increasing naval force in the Indian Ocean and off Somalia. The Russians should be asked why they are doing this, and it should be explained to them that that policy seems to justify our policy of allowing American bases on Diego Garcia. I should be very much against allowing an American unit in Diego Garcia in the light of the views of the littoral states, especially in view of the nuclear weapons opposed by Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, were it not for the growing Russian presence. The situation is awkward, and the Russians should be told that when there are massive Russian naval forces in the Indian Ocean it becomes difficult to deny the use of Diego Garcia to the Americans.
Thirdly, the Antarctic should be discussed at an early stage. Before the major countries of Western and Eastern Europe become too involved in the Antarctic, as they are rapidly becoming, some agreement should be worked out. I had the good fortune to attend the Foreign Office seminar on this subject.

1311
Time precludes my going into the subject in detail, but I should like a clear statement from my right hon. Friend that this subject is on the agenda for the conference.
My constituents—and I think most East Scots—are becoming slightly bothered at constant Press reports of Russian ships shadowing our fishing boats in the North Sea and looking at the oil rigs. We should be candid with the Russians and ask what is the purpose of this shadowing. As my right hon. Friend talked of a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation, I should like to go a good deal further and ask the Russians whether it is possible to come to a positive agreement on the difficult problems of deep sea diving that we and they face. As my right hon. Friend knows, the 52nd diver has lost his life in the North Sea, and there is some evidence that the Russians have had similar problems.
At a time when the American and Russian astronauts are linking up in Soyuz and Apollo it should not be too difficult for ourselves and the Russians, faced with similar problems on deep sea diving, to get together to see whether there is a basis for joint research. Incidentally, this subject raises yet again the issue of the deep ocean search and recovery vessel. That is the kind of project on which we could co-operate with the Soviet Union.
At Question Time today the Prime Minister made it clear that the European Parliament and the Nine were not concerned with defence and foreign affairs. At one level that is true, but at another level, those of us who have recently met Sir Christopher Soames and had the good fortune to see the European Parliament in action and to talk to our German and French colleagues, might have rather different views on this subject.
To limit myself to one aspect—procurement—there is no doubt that a European view is developing on procurement. For example, there was the episode of the Belgian F16 and what the French Government had to say about it. There is not time for me to deal with that in depth, but any Defence or Foreign Office Minister knows precisely what I am getting at, and knows also that there are people in Brussels who are beginning to
1312
take major decisions that are not sorutinised under any democratic process.
One might ask whether the countries of Western Europe who have been through 300 years of struggle for democracy are now to find that some major decisions are being taken that are accountable to nobody. We might go back to the 1630s and to the problem that the House had at that time with Supply.
Speaking as a member of the budget committee of the European Parliament, I say this with some feeling. Let us not suppose that there is any chance of scrutinising and investigating these important decisions as long as the European Parliament is peripatetic, as long as one month the Parliament meets in Strasbourg, one month it meets in Luxembourg and the committees meet in Brussels. No serious Parliament can operate in those conditions.
If there is to be scrutiny, the European Parliament must meet in one place, and that must be where the decisions are made, which is Brussels. I hope that before many months are passed there will be a serious initiative from the British Government with the Governments of France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries, to ensure that if the European Parliament is to be taken seriously and if there is to be an element of democratic scrutiny, that Parliament must meet in one place and must be seen to be doing a solid job. So long as the European Parliament moves from place to place, I doubt whether the scrutiny that is necessary can be undertaken.
Will my Government undertake to raise the subject with the Governments of the Nine and to investigate whether the European Parliament can settle down next to the Commission and become an organ of proper and effective scrutiny?
5.39 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: The mountain has brought forth a mouse. The Minister of State has tried to assure us that there is nothing very dangerous about the mouse and that there might even be some good in it. I hope that he is right, but I want to ask him one or two questions.
I understand that Her Majesty's Government have never recognised de jure

1313
the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States or the Oder-Neisse frontier. May I have an assurance that when we subscribe to the principle of inviolability of frontiers we are in no way going back on the present position in regard to the Baltic States and the Oder-Neisse frontier? Many commentators, as recently as in the Financial Times yesterday, have argued that the Helsinki Declaration will set the stamp of recognition on the status quo in Europe.
If by the status quo is meant that we continue to recognise the territorial integrity of the countries of Eastern Europe, with the exception of what I have just said about the Baltic States and the Oder-Neisse Line, clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) pointed out, there is nothing very new about that. We have always recognised this and have been in diplomatic relations with them. But I should like an assurance that there is nothing in the declaration that would involve recognition of the partition of Europe on ideological lines, as something that we accepted as established and entrenched, that this is not a new Holy Alliance or Treaty of Westphalia intended to establish existing régimes permanently.
Here I should like to press the Minister a little on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the Brezhnev doctrine. As I understand it, the declaration would be incompatible with any attempt to impose a change by force on another country, as was done in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. I should like an assurance that that is Her Majesty's Government's interpretation of the declaration—that it would in fact outlaw the Brezhnev doctrine. I accept that it could not be a guarantee that it would not be done again, but that if it were done it would be contrary to the declaration.
The matter is important because of the anxieties that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), among others, about anything untoward happening in Yugoslavia and Albania.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: I well remember the right hon. Gentleman as a very great supporter of the intervention in Suez in 1956. Would he say that a similar
1314
line should be laid down with regard to British activities?
Mr. Amery: The right hon. Member is making a joly debating point about a very different situation, where treaty rights applied. I do not think it has any bearing on the Helsinki declaration. If we subscribe to the principle of the declaration I should like to be sure that the Government's interpretation would outlaw the Brezhnev doctrine.
I think we all welcome the concessions in basket 3, such as they are. It would be naive, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman made clear, to expect too much or even very much of this. Opinions may vary on how far the Soviet leadership still wants to spread world revolution, but I think all of us must agree that it has a vested interest in maintaining an adversary relationship with the West. The maintenance of its exclusive power and privileges depends upon it. The Soviet Union dare not allow freedom, as we understand it, to spread through its territory, because it would undermine the whole position of its leaders. This is a measure of their weakness, but it is also a measure of danger; for with technical developments, satellite television, and so on, the truth is going to be spread and will not be kept out. This may lead to a sharpening of the adversary relationship in the future.
I do not think that we can call what has been achieved in Geneva a great step towards real détente. There will be a real détente only when the Berlin Wall is pulled down and the whole paraphernalia of the "Gulag Archipelago" and the Police State has been dismantled. The Security Conference may be a small step in the right direction, but there is a slight atmosphere of charade about the summit that is to take place. There is a gap between words and realities. I say nothing of what has been happening in Vietnam or the expansion of the Soviet Fleet in the Indian Ocean. Looking simply at Europe itself, the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reduction were supposed to be a parallel development—not directly linked but moving in parallel—with the security conference. In Vienna there appears to be no progress at all but a steady build-up of Soviet forces in Central Europe. This is the background to the security conference.

1315
There is something rather grotesque—to any of us who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) or who have been following the Portuguese situation in the newspapers—at the thought of a number of middle-aged statesmen toasting each other in champagne and making speeches about détente while in a European country at this moment democracy is being stifled by the very forces that were foremost in summoning this security conference.
I should myself have preferred that the conference were wound up at Foreign Minister level, but if our partners in the European Community thought differently, I think the Government were right to fall in step with them about it. I certainly salute the remarkable co-operation which has been achieved between the nine members of the Community in this very long haul. I hope that in the period ahead we shall keep the interests of the Community and of all Europe constantly in mind, particularly where the follow-up is concerned. I hope that we shall make sure that no machinery is established which would give to the Russians or, indeed, to the Americans, a right of supervision over the affairs of the Community.
The present tragic division of Europe stems directly from the Yalta agreements between President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin. It was a deal between super-Powers undertaken at the expense of Europe. It was a division which will be very hard to bridge, but at least let us do nothing to perpetuate it, let alone to entrench it.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. Bruce George: This is an historic day in East-West relations, not just because of the debate taking place here today, as a result of which to some extent I think East-West relations may have been retarded. I am referring to the Soviet-American link-up in space over Bognor Regis. Perhaps the technical benefits are rather limited but the political benefits of this relationship are, I believe, enormous, showing the new spirit of co-operation between East and West. It shows, too, that the détente proceeds at a number of different levels.
The MBFR talks and the SALT negotiations may be progressing slowly, but the fact that they are progressing at
1316
all is something that we must welcome. The CSCE negotiations, culminating shortly in Helsinki, although lengthy and complicated—one might call them marathon negotiations—are welcome because they are bringing about improvements in relations between East and West.
I do not believe that we should see the MBFR and CSCE negotiations as separate. They are politcally and conceptually linked. One cannot talk about one without talking about the other. Many people have expectations about the outcome of these negotiations which are little short of euphoric. I do not share this euphoria. On the other hand, I deplore the attitude of some writers, especially the writer of a recent article in The Economist, who aproached the CSCE negotiations in a denigrating fashion. The writer said that there is "no agreement in sight". He also called it "this cursed conference", and said that everyone in the West is weary to death of the CSCE, its ten principles, its four baskets and its endless talking.
I hope that the views expressed by this writer are supported by only a limited number of people because, for all of the difficulties of the negotiations taking place, they are offering to East and West some hope for the future. One has only to recall the last 25 years of cold war, when this nation and the nations of the world on a number of occasions were almost plunged into a mighty conflagration, to see that progress is being made, which we must welcome. The fact that these negotiations that are taking place in Helsinki are protracted is an indication of their very complexity and the range of issues still dividing Europe 30 years after the ending of hostilities in the Second World War.
Rather than support The Economist I prefer to reiterate the much more optimistic sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Richie Calder, in another place. He said, and I agree with him that for good or ill this conference would determine the course of world events, and we should view these negotiations with considerable interest. We must view the progress of these CSCE negotiations as part of the wider progress towards détente. For all the obstacles which have been placed before it, its participants show a determination to reach agreement and, although the history books are, littered

1317
with examples of failed conferences, we must express the hope that this one will not go down as an example which took a great deal of time and which did not yield any significant success.
Mr. Michael Brotherton: The hon. Gentleman said that the world's history books were littered with conferences which had been begun with great hopes. However, he is gloomy about hope for the future. The hope for the immediate future for the West must be to have sufficiently strong defences to make sure that we can defend ourselves against those who would attack us.
Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman had curbed his impatience for a few more minutes he would have heard the remainder of my argument, which substantially reiterates his point.
We must remember that détente is little more than a decade old. I prefer to use the phrase "limited détente". A détente is not an alliance It does not mean a sinking of differences. It does not signify an amicable approach to all our problems. I wish that détente did signify more.
The rivalry between East and West will persist into the foreseeable future, but it will operate at a lower level of tension. Our survival depends on our working out a modus vivendi for living together peacefully, and our present state of limited détente recognises that, although East and West do not share the same goals, at least they are prepared to conduct their competition with significantly less risk to themselves and to the rest of the world.
We now face a clear choice between living in a mixed international system in which allies and adversaries are loosely bound together in a network of fundamental co-operation or a return to a bipolar situation in which the lines of conflict are drawn starkly, and the second of those choices almost inevitably will result in a significant increase in the danger of a new war.
We have come a long way since the process of détente began, but we cannot assume that we are moving progressively and inescapably towards a higher plane. We cannot assume that we are moving towards a position of détente and coexistence which will progressively im-
1318
prove. Détente has suffered many reverses. One has only to read letters in the Daily Telegraph or attend debates in this House to know that some cold warriors are still with us. What is more, in the USA and in the USSR opposition to détente is still to be seen, and one well-known writer has said that he could envisage developments which would make this opposition to détente very considerable in the years ahead. We must not see progress as inevitable. Détente and a general improvement in relations have to be worked for. Given the mistrust in many quarters I am constantly amazed that détente has progressed as far as it has. There is nothing automatic about its continuation, and that is a point which we must bear in mind. It must be worked for, because our futures depend on it.
Recently I was in the Library looking at one of the works of a hard-working American professor, Professor Elliot Goodman, and I came across his "Soviet Design for a World State". That exemplifies the attitude of many people in this country who see the Soviet Union working towards world domination. Others say that the Russians have abandoned at one level their desire for world revolution but that they are now embarked upon a more cunning way in which they can lull the West into complacency, lower our guard and then strike with a view to creating this World State. Anyone who has read the works of Lenin knows that he said.
"Our philosophy is not a dogma but a guide to action."
There are those people who, therefore, say that Soviet philosophy is war-consequent action and adaptable, that we are faced by an adversary with a more cunning approach. But we must remember that whereas the West would like to see every nation a liberal or social democracy that does not mean that we are prepared to engulf the world in a war to achieve that objective. The Soviet Union would like to see many nations embracing its political, economic and social system, but that does not mean that the Russians are now intent on world revolution to achieve that goal.
A pre-condition for the success of détente is clearly a military balance. The West negotiates from strength. As someone said earlier, we must maintain our defences, but at the same time we must

1319
work genuinely for an improvement of relations. I do not say that the Soviet Union is trying to beguile us and that we should abandon all our defences. We must have a viable defence system, but at the same time we must work for an improvement in relationships.
All the participants in this Helsinki conference have a mixture of motives. Many people say that originally the Soviet Union saw these negotiations as an opportunity to drive a wedge between NATO and its allies. Many people say that the Soviet Union sees the conference as a process to facilitate United States disengagement from Europe. Many have seen it from the Soviet standpoint as a means of ratifying the post-war status quo and of confirming Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe or as a means for the Soviet Union to secure its European flank in order to free itself for greater propeations on its border with China.
We in the West, too, have our motives. This is not a matter of one cynical set of individuals from Eastern Europe facing a naive sect of individuals from the United States and Western Europe. We have our motives. Such a conference is a legitimate forum at which to pursue the national interests of both East and West. We often hear it said that war is a continuation of diplomacy by another means. We have not yet played out the diplomatic processes, and we hope that the negotiations will be successful.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's exposition of Soviet motives. What is his explanation of the enormous increase in the military might of the Warsaw Pact countries in recent years?
Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman had attended our defence debate a few days ago he would have heard my exposition of that already. I said then that there was once a grotesque imbalance of forces between East and West and that the Soviet Union for its own motives wanted to increase its armoury. I do not share the views of some of my hon. Friends that the Soviet Union has any degree of inferiority. I believe that there is a balance, and I hope that it will be maintained, because disarmanent can continue only from a position of parity.
1320
These CSCE negotiations must not be seen as a new departure. They must be seen as part of an on-going process. I hope that the conference can create a new plateau from which we can look back on the progress of relations between East and West over the past 10 years. I hope, too, that it will enable us to take stock of the situation and possibly codify our relations over that period. Until now these results have been underpinned by force or by the threat of force. I hope that as a result of the negotiations there will be an agreement which will help to create a less militarily-based relationship.
Détente has suffered many setbacks, but there have been significant advances. We have seen improvements in trade. I welcome the activities of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in improving trade relations between Britain and the Soviet Union. We have seen technical and scientific collaboration. We see a proliferation of bilateral treaties between Russia and the Western nations. Many dangerous problems have been defused, such as that over Berlin and Germany. SALT 1 and 2 give hope that ultimately there will be nuclear force reductions. Although these achievements will not bring about the millenium they may ultimately transform the international political scene. They will, I hope, replace confrontation with negotiation and bring about a reversal of a generation of hostilities. They will create a more favourable environment in which trade can continue, and I hope that they will bring about a more prosperous and secure Europe, and from that, I hope, a more prosperous and secure world.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on what I believe should happen after the Helsinki negotiations assuming, as most of us do, that these are successful. There are some who are urging the creation of a permanent body, permanent consultative machinery, on European security. Clearly, the Soviet Union is attracted to this, but there are many cautionary voices from Western circles. Some committed Europeans of the EEC variety believe that joint East-West European negotiations would retard the economic unification of Western Europe, something which I might subscribe to as well. There are many committed Europeans who see this dialogue on a permanent basis as retarding a common defence policy in Europe and a

1321
common foreign policy approach in Europe. Some committed supporters of NATO see a permanent relationship on security as possibly leading to the demise of NATO or to a reduction of United States' influence.
If the Helsinki conference is successful one has the choice of taking stock of the new situation and thinking very seriously about creating permanent machinery; because if the functions of the proposed authority are well defined, if we can be assured that the existing NATO presence is maintained, I see no reason why an East-West dialogue should not continue. My point is not whether permanent machinery should be set up. I ask, rather, when it should be set up, how it should be set up and where it should be set up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I would remind the House that the debate for back benchers will conclude at about 6.30. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Peter Blaker: When we are considering negotiations with the Soviet Union my mind goes back to the time, rather over 20 years ago, when I was personally involved in the negotiations by which Western Germany was brought into NATO, and the attitude of the Soviet Union at that time; because the Soviet Union told us that if we brought Germany into NATO we would not get an Austrian State treaty—the treaty on which we were working to bring to an end the state of war in Austria and the withdrawal of the occupying Powers from that country.
We in the West were faced with the question what we should do in the light of this ultimatum. Very rightly, we decided to go ahead with admitting Germany into NATO; and within six months not only was Germany in NATO but we had the Austrian State Treaty. I mention that example because it shows two things about negotiations with the Soviet Union; first, that it pays for the West to be united and firm and, secondly, that the Soviet Union is capable of reversing its position in international affairs much more readily than could a democracy such as ours, because the Soviet Union has no problem of persuading public opinion of the wisdom of making a sudden change.
1322
I fear, in connection with this conference, that the West may not have insisted on enough. I shall explain later why I take that view. Meanwhile, I acknowledge the force of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State deployed and, in particular, his argument that the principles which have been agreed will provide a yardstick against which we can test Russian performance. On balance, it is right that the nations should go to Helsinki.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) had serious reservations about the wisdom of this conference. He is concerned that the conference may amount to the ratification of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. He said, I believe, that the world will accept that conquest is acceptable for Communism. I do not go along with him in that view. I believe that the events of 1956 in Hungary, the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Ostpolitik, have themselves made it clear that the status quo in Eastern Europe is something which we cannot do anything about by force of arms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made clear. We are not, by what has been agreed at this conference, approving the Brezhnev doctrine. If the principles in basket are observed the position of countries in Eastern Europe should be better, not worse. So regarding the fear of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that this agreement will be taken as setting the seal on the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, I believe that it will not, unless we in the West keep saying that that is so.
My concern is a different one—the danger that the West may imagine that détente has arrived and that this conference may accelerate the process we already see towards unilateral disarmament on the part of the West, caused partly by lack of will on the part of peoples and Governments and partly by the process of inflation. The Russians regard détente as a tactic, as the continuation of subversion by other means, as a sleeping draught for the West, and they are having a good deal of success in that respect.
My analysis of Soviet motives is confirmed day by day by the continued Soviet military build-up. The point on which I feel that the Government may not have

1323
insisted enough is that there should have been more progress on MBFR before the CSCE was concluded. I am afraid it is now too late to insist on that, except to this extent—that it ought still to be possible in Helsinki to extract from the Soviet Union some declaration of intent, which may be of some value, which we can repeat back to them if necessary, about the seriousness of their intentions at the MBFR conference.
As far as the baskets are concerned, it all depends how they are interpreted. Yesterday, I looked at the constitution of the Soviet Union, Article 17 of which says that
"The right freely to secede from the USSR is reserved to every Union Republic".
So in theory Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are free to secede. Article 125 says that
"In conformity with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings, freedom of street processions and demonstrations."
That is the kind of thing we should bear in mind when we are assessing whether these principles amount to détente or, as the Minister of State more accurately said, are—as they are in my view—only a first step in the direction of détente.
Basket 3 is one of the most important baskets. If we achieve success with this basket the conference will have been worth while. Here again our attitude should be one of scepticism. We should be saying to the Soviet Union, "We have agreed to these principles. Now show us that you will observe them. It is all very well to have family contacts, but why are you not going further than that?" We should ask, "Why are you allowing families to be reunited only if one member of the family is already outside the Soviet Union? Why are you not allowing families to leave the Soviet Union together if they wish to do so?" There will be no real détente until the Berlin Wall comes down and there is a complete change of attitude in the assumptions made by the Soviet Union—until it abandons its objective of overthrowing the capitalist way of life, which it daily repeats in its newspapers.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham in this respect; the
1324
EEC countries have worked together extremely well throughout this conference. They have had an influence on the result and a measurable influence on the Americans. We must build on that. It is as sure as can be that sooner or later the Russians will attempt, either by the carrot or the stick, to detach one or more members from the Community. The closer we are knit together at that time the better. One of the ways we can best knit ourselves together is by evolving a common foreign policy.
The Minister of State referred to the importance of teaching the new generation—who do not remember the events of 1956 and 1968—the facts about our relations with the Soviet Union. It is up to the Government to educate the country in the realities of the Soviet system. The right hon. Member represents a Birmingham constituency and as I understand it Birmingham City education authority is distributing literature aimed at educating children in religion, including Marxism. I would like to see it and other educational authorities educating young people in the true nature of the Soviet system as it works in practice.
This would be one of the ways in which we could prevent our people from being lulled into the assumption that détente has arrived and disarmament is the order of the day. We should be educating them about the world ambitions of the Soviet Union, the history of the Soviet Union, the practices of Stalin, the treaty with Hitler, and the fact that the Soviet Union is still putting intelligent educationists, artists and writers into asylums for the insane—not concentration camps but insane asylums where they are incarcerated for years. We should be educating our children about what Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and others have said about the nature of the Soviet régime.
I say this not because I want to perpetuate the cold war or cause tension but because I believe that if we understand the true facts about the Soviet Union it will help reduce tension. The best way to convince the Soviet Union that it must one day change its objective of overthrowing the Western world is to show it that we are not deceived by it and that we have the will to remain strong and united in our defence.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Newens: I would have thought that all those who are genuinely concerned about peace in Europe and the world as a whole would welcome the progress made towards the Helsinki conference. I am afraid, however, that the tone of some speeches from the Opposition benches has been reminiscent of the cold war. This is unfortunate. We ought to have welcomed much more wholeheartedly what has been achieved. When we consider the objections which have been raised on the Right, we see that it is argued that we must not make any concessions which affect Western security and we must not separate agreements from progress on mutual and balanced force reductions at Vienna.
We have heard about the superiority in conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have conveniently ignored certain facts which ought to be brought out. There is no question at this stage but that the West has nuclear superiority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the debate on the Defence White Paper that there was nuclear parity. I challenged him about that in my speech at that time.
I repeat that according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute handbook of 1974, which quotes official United States estimates of total warheads on missiles and planes in the West and East, the figures are 7,940 for the United States and 2,600 for the USSR. No facts have been brought forward to refute those figures. In those circumstances we must accept that at this stage there is enormous Western nuclear superiority.
In view of this the Warsaw Pact Powers clearly argue for the maintenance of conventional superiority. I do not accept the argument of West or East on this. I consider that both sides are going down the wrong road and that it is necessary for some of us who try to speak with the voice of sanity to say that we should not argue for the increase of armaments on either basis.
Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the figures which he has quoted overall are broken down between the ICBM-type missiles, which are capable of launching
1326
all-out attacks on civilisations, and tactical missiles? When that breakdown is made he can be sure that there is parity in the larger and potentially more destructive weapons.
Mr. Newens: I do not think that I am free to pursue that matter here. Outside this House I shall gladly meet the hon. Gentleman and look at the facts and the statistics and consider anything he puts forward. Nothing that I have so far seen refutes what I have said. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to do that. Those on the Right who argue against the steps towards the ECSC must recognise that the Left could equally argue against such steps on the grounds that they are meaningless because of the behaviour of the Western nations since the 1939–45 war.
Let us remember that the record of the West includes the support of such events as the pursuit of the war in Vietnam to the bitter end, during the course of which 7 million tons of explosives were dropped on Vietnam by the United States—three times the total dropped by all the combatants in the Second World War. We must remember that 3½ million acres were sprayed with defoliants and that there was a total of 6 million casualties. In those circumstances, I do not think that we can regard the case of the West as unassailable.
The Left might equally argue, as some more militant elements have argued against the Labour Left, that it is only by the use of force that essential radical social change can be achieved. I do not accept that argument, but I believe that Right wing Opposition Members should recognise that that view is taken by some people in the world today.
Opposition Members have raised the issue of Czechoslovakia. I clearly state that some Labour Members took just as strong a stand as Opposition Members on that issue. Many of us can claim to have a lot more sympathy with the concept of Socialism with a human face than can Opposition Members.
All hon. Members have a duty to seek to avoid bloodshed and suffering, and this means that we must foster co-operation throughout the world. Therefore, we should give our support to the steps which have been taken towards détente in Europe and press the Government to give every support now to the steps which

1327
have been taken towards the conference in Helsinki.
I do not regard the achievements of the Commission at Geneva as ultimate. However, considerable progress has been made in basket 2, concerning economic co-operation.
In my view, more problems have arisen concerning the freedom of information and ideas and the access of citizens across frontiers. The record of many countries, especially the Warsaw Pact countries, leaves much to be desired in this area. The obstacles which have frequently been placed in the way of family unity and the movement of people are deplorable. By moving forward in this respect, we may help any people in Eastern European countries who have so far been deprived of the right to move across frontiers. I hope that all hon. Members will regard this as desirable.
On the other hand, let us not be completely mealy-mouthed about this issue The record of the West is not spotless. I believe I am correct in saying that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was at the Home Office when Rudi Dutschke was excluded from this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Gentlemen saying "Hear, hear". It is no good their claiming that they want complete freedom of movement of people and then arguing that it was right for a British Conservative Government to throw out somebody on the basis that Rudi Dutschke was thrown out.
Mr. Brotherton: Is the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) really arguing that we should allow crooks to come into this country?
Mr. Newens: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is either extremely ignorant of the facts of this matter or extremely stupid. The argument against Rudi Dutschke had nothing to do with his being a crook. It should be deeply resented that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the manner he has done.
Rudi Dutschke was excluded because of his political views. We cannot argue in favour of that when we talk about what is being done at present, and when we criticise the Governments of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries
1328
for not allowing freedom of movement towards the conference and ideas in those countries.
We must not forget that the Communist Party is illegal in Western Germany and that there are regulations about immigration. We must recognise that there are faults on both sides. However, I believe that progress is being made and that all hon. Members of good will should welcome and support the next stage in CSCE.
The next question to be asked is, how will these agreements and recommendations be carried out? We cannot just leave it to a review conference. We should aim to ensure that permanent commissions, representative of all countries, are set up as a result of the Helsinki conference—commissions that will seek to implement the agreements which have been reached. If this is not done, it may well be that no progress will be made in the long run and that these agreements will be empty words. Therefore, I feel very strongly that we should ensure and press for the implementation of the agreements by permanent commissions.
As one of those hon. Members who are extremely critical of the inadequacy of our Defence Review and who believe that we are vastly overspending on arms, I argue that we must go much further than the scope of the CSCE provides. In this respect, I am anxious that we should press on with the other discussions that are taking place at present. None the less, we should welcome and support the decision which has been taken because it represents at this stage a real step forward.
We must recognise that the whole of humanity has been spending far too much money and wasting resources on arms and means of destruction for far too many years. But at the same time it has utterly neglected the problems of world poverty and deprivation. That is something that we should never neglect.
We must recognise that with CSCE we have taken a considerable step forward in the right direction. I hope that hon. Members will give full support to that step and that we shall see in the years ahead considerable improvements in the situation.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Ian Sproat: In the few minutes left I should like to say that I very much welcome what the

1329
Minister of State has said about hoping to sign an agreement at Helsinki.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I now understand that the Ministerial reply is not likely to begin before 6.35 p.m.
Mr. Sproat: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman. The reason I welcome what the Government are doing is that I believe that on balance the advantage of this agreement, as provisionally drafted, is with the West. Not only is the overall balance with the West, but the balance of each basket, to a different extent, is also with the West. This is not to say that I am blind to or under any illusions about the aims of the Soviet Union. I believe that the aims of the Soviet Union remain the same, namely, that by this conference and by other means, it seeks to alter the balance of power in Europe in its favour, to weaken and divide the West, to strengthen and consolidate its hold in Eastern Europe and to reduce its own risks in Europe as a whole in the light of the threat posed on its Chinese border, its technological and consumer failures and its various ethnic problems.
However, against that bleak background, I believe that the advantage of each basket lies with the West. It is true that in basket 1 the Soviet Union has gained what might be called a further paper formalisation of the status quo and no doubt the Soviet Union will make as much of that as it can. The fact remains that that paper formalisation is not a legal document. It does not mean that we, in the West, are legally recognising the situation as it emerged after 1945, to any greater extent than previously. In other words, the de facto and de jure situations seem to remain the same—the de jure situation because it is not a legal document and the de facto situation because it has never been our intention to invade, say Eastern Germany to reunite East and West Germany by force.
I suggest that the Russian advantage—they may see it—is negligible. It is not an advantage, because it is still possible, under the terms of this agreement, to change frontiers peaceably. I do not think that the various principles about
1330
inviolability of frontiers, respect for sovereignty and non-recourse to force would stop the Soviet Union doing a Czechoslovakia 1968, if it wanted to do so, any more than would the prior warning of troop manoeuvres, excellent as they are in their way. None the less, by a process of Gulliverisation—that is, tying down by small threads, none binding but all having an overall restraining effect—I believe that the overall advantage is to the West.
Basket 2 is perhaps the most underestimated basket. I think that the advantage is to us, but somebody is making a big error of judgment. The West believes that commercial, industrial, scientific and technological co-operation is to its advantage because it thinks that it has more expertise, plus the magnetism which the EEC will generate. We think that somehow an increase in trade will stimulate rising expectations in Eastern Europe which will lead to dissatisfaction with the régimes there.
On the other hand, the Soviet Union clearly believes that it will get the balance of trade, that the credits which we are extending will enable it to free money to be spent on other matters and that the technological expertise that we are to give will enable it to consolidate its grip on the people under its sway.
I believe that the commercial and technological expertise of the West, particularly through the medium of the EEC, will dominate. However, the advantages—perhaps the dangers—are somewhat underestimated by the West.
Basket 3—the freer flow of people and ideas—is entirely to our advantage. I do not suggest that the advantages are great, but, such as they are, they are in our favour. Everything that we require the Soviet Union to do by way of free exchanges we are doing already. We are giving nothing that we have not already granted to others. Therefore, although these advantages are not considerable, they add up to something in the process of Gulliverisation. If the Soviet Union does not keep its word under the provisions of basket 3, it will stoke up discontent among its own and other peoples of Eastern Europe which will ultimately redound to the advantage of the West.

1331
On basket 4, the follow-up, I accept the common wisdom that we should have another look at that in two years with a meeting not of Heads of Government but of Foreign Secretaries. There is some advantage to the West in having a permanent secretariat of some kind after two years.
Loth as I am to agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), I think that ultimately the West will have the better tale to tell. It is the Soviet Union which will break these provisions and which will be before the bar of any commission which may be set up. We should not be too scared by what I might call any provision for a platform of abuse by the Soviet Union, to which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred, but we should walk rather slowly on this one.
Finally, I should like to echo what has been said by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Détente is no substitute for defence. There must be no relaxation of our guard. The Berlin Wall is still there, the occupying forces are still in Czechoslovakia, and the Warsaw Pact forces still outnumber NATO. In the light of these factors, it would be grotesquely dangerous for us to lower our guard for a minute. On the contrary, we should maintain and increase our guard against conventional attacks, against subversive attacks and, indeed, against psychological attacks on the West.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the whole House would agree that this has been a useful and important debate. It fully justifies the decision by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet to make available part of a Supply Day for this purpose. It might have been better had the Government provided the time in view of the importance of the subject. Indeed, if I were in a chiding mood, I might criticise the Minister of State for not providing us with a little more information, for not arranging for statements to be made on the negotiations which have so far taken place and, indeed, for not providing at least partial texts of the documents which I understand are available to the Press. But, in view of the
1332
right hon. Gentleman's reassuring and welcome speech this afternoon, which struck me as being sensible and striking exactly the right balance between détente, which we all want, and defence, without which we dare not be, I pass on to some of the excellent, short speeches which have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) was worried about this being "Operation Something for Nothing".
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) spoke with some force and a good deal of personal experience about the disturbing situation in Portugal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), speaking with great experience, was anxious that in the CSCE agreements there should not be any formal recognition of the partition of our continent.
Whilst welcoming what has happened and hoping that it will make an important contribution to the peace and security of Europe, the theme running through the debate has been that we must nevertheless be cautious and ensure that it does not lead, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, to the letting down of our guard. Our attitude, therefore, is certainly one of welcome, but qualified welcome.
We welcome the progress that has been made and the prospects for the agreements being signed at the summit in the terms expressed by the Minister of State—namely, as one small step along the road to détente. I certainly take his point that, as far as younger generation is concerned, the credibility of our defence posture requires that there should also be a credible search for détente in the world as a whole.
I must qualify our welcome in terms of genuine doubts on three of four specific scores.
First, I wonder, as many of my hon. Friends have wondered, how much genuine progress towards peace and security and freedom of exchanges will arise from the CSCE agreements. I do not go along with all the rather strong comments which have been made in, for

1333
example, the Daily Telegraph. But I notice that its reporter in Geneva, referring to the documents which he apparently had seen, wrote that the main one
"consists of a number of slippery clauses painstakingly negotiated into suitable ambiguity. They are generally agreed unlikely to change the situation in Europe in the foreseeable future."
I do not endorse that particularly jaundiced view, but I think that I am entitled to ask, how much reality is likely to arise from these agreements?
Our second concern arises from the possibility that the Soviets, having made very few, if any, real concessions or movements towards the West, will be able to present the proposed treaty and, perhaps more important, the summit conference that agrees it as a major breakthrough for their "peace policy" as they describe it. The Russians have been calling for such a conference for a very long time. But I cannot help noticing that, while their words have grown more peaceful and their actions perhaps more cautious over recent years, nevertheless they have continued to arm at a pace and on a scale which has increased their military advantage vis-à-vis the West.
The Opposition are concerned that the signing of these accords should not lead the West, and some Government supporters in particular, to conclude that the danger has diminished or even disappeared and that NATO is therefore less necessary.
The view of the Opposition, and I think of the Government, is that if there has been progress towards a measure of peace and security in Europe in recent years it is precisely because NATO is strong—not because NATO is weak. We should therefore very much regret it if the Helsinki summit were to be the signal for ever more frantic demands for further reductions or dismantling of the defences of the West.
I shall come to some more precise reservations. I ask the Minister to say what is to be the exact status of these agreements. He said that they were not to be legal documents in the sense that the 35 signatory nations would regard themselves as legally bound by them under international law. They cannot therefore be enforced. If, for example,
1334
a Jewish woman, seeking to leave the Sovet Union to join her husband in the West, were prevented from leaving, she would in law be unable to cite the Helsinki agreement under basket 3 and would not be able to appeal to any international court for redress.
The Minister said that the Soviet Union would incur the odium of world opinion. He mentioned the opinion of the Third World. I hope that he will not regard it as offensive if I say that I thought that that was the weakest part of his speech. When looking at what is happening in parts of the Third World, some of us would not regard odium from that quarter as any guarantee of the rights of European peoples.
The question arising in respect of the status of the agreement was anticipated by the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, when he said at the commencement of the Helsinki discussions on 5th July 1973 to the assembled Foreign Ministers,
"It is time to move from general declarations of principles to their application in the lives of ordinary people."
He agreed with Mr. Gromyko, who called for a code of conduct for Europe, and said,
"That is an impeccable sentiment. The pertinent question is—what is this to mean in terms of the lives of ordinary people in Europe? We cannot leave such sentiments hanging in the air. We must come down to earth."
At a time of the union of cosmonauts over Bognor Regis, I think that that is the right approach. We must come down to earth. Therefore I put a number of down-to-earth questions to the Minister.
First, will basket 3, and the agreement on the free exchange of information, mean that more British, German, American and French newspapers will freely circulate in Moscow? We obtain copies of Izvestia and Pravda in London. Why should not The Times and the Daily Express circulate in Moscow? This agreement, if accepted by the Soviet Union, should make that possible. What about broadcasts? We listen to Radio Moscow, which even gave us advice on the referendum. Are we to believe that following this agreement BBC programmes to the Soviet Union will no longer be jammed?

1335
I next refer to the many cases of human rights. I cite the case of a Jewish physicist arrested on charges of parasitism because he had applied to emigrate to Israel. I know of the case of a Roman Catholic priest, Father Bernard, who was dealt with most severely on being convicted of preparing children for Communion. That happened in the Soviet Union. I have some sympathy with the great Soviet writer, Solzhenitsyn who said at a conference arranged by the American Federation of Labour and the CIO in New York that the CSCE should try to slow down the process of concessions but speed up the process of liberation of the Soviet people.
We are entitled to judge the reality of the CSCE by the pace at which personal freedom—including the ability to read the newspaper of our choice and to listen to the radio programme of our choice—progresses on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
We all welcome any increase in trade and exchanges between our countries provided by basket 2. I was interested in the answer which the Prime Minister gave to a Question asked today by a member of the Opposition about how far the agreement would improve the trade arrangements recently negotiated in Moscow. The United Kingdom agreed to give to the Soviet Union an enormous credit of the order of £1,000 million at a rate of interest reported to be about 7 per cent. while we borrowed a large sum from Iran at more than double that rate. When he replies, will the Minister say whether the negotiations and the summit conference which is to take place will put trading arrangements on a fairer footing, so that in our trade with the Soviet Union we do not borrow short and lend long? I do not think that to do that makes much sense.
Finally, basket 1 provides security measures. I confess that I sympathise with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion and others who found it hard to square the Soviet Union's commitment of the ten principles enunciated in basket 1 with what has happened. Take for example the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of others States. How is that to be squared with events in Hungary, Portugal and Czecholslovakia?
1336
I was in Budapest when the Soviet Union intervened. I shall never forget the killing and fighting which occurred then. It is difficult to describe that, in terms of basket 1, as non-intervention in the internal affairs or as showing respect for human rights and fundamental freedom.
One of the most brutal acts of force to take place in Europe since the war, occurred in Czechoslovakia. We are entitled to ask how that fits in with the basket 1 principle of non-recourse to the threat of the use of force.
I next refer to the question of confidence building. I welcome the progress which has been made towards the prior notification of manœuvres and troop movements. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us more detail about that.
This is the reality. The CSCE basket 1 is not worth very much unless there is agreement and specific action to enforce it in the MBFR talks and the SALT negotiations. When the CSCE talks began they were regarded by the West as part of a package in which the MBFR and the SALT negotiations played an essential part. At that time Sir Alec Douglas-Home said that the confidence building measures touched only the fringe of the basic question of military security in Europe.
Our attitude is that we welcome the progress which has been made. We wish the summit well. But we shall judge it by what actually happens. We want to see the defence of the West maintained as the essential precondition of détente. We want to see progress at the MBFR and SALT negotiations and we shall look carefully to see whether the bold and splendid words and principles of CSCE are translated into a little more freedom, trade and peace for the people of Europe.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Hattersley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the representative of the Liberal Party and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)—who speaks more often than most and, I suspect, knows more than most in the House about this subject—all gave a qualified welcome to the progress that has

1337
been made during the last two of the CSCE negotiations, and a welcome, equally qualified, to the prospects of a summit in 14 days' time and what that summit might achieve.
I want to turn first, however, not to those right hon. and hon. Members who have welcomed what the Government and their 34 partners in CSCE hope to do, but to those hon. Members who have dealt with the possible dangers of the CSCE summit. They range from the reasonable—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in particular, who rightly referred to the dangers of overstating the advantages, success and achievements of CSCE—to the absurd—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who compared the CSCE summit with Munich. That is something that I think will embarrass him in the years ahead.
Although he is not in the Chamber at present, the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) needs a special mention, because he condemned the entire exercise so totally and so completely that one is left in wonder that he could have remained in the Cabinet that began the exercise exactly two years ago.
I turn to the more specific criticisms and fears. Let me at once put some of them at rest. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) raised two specific questions—the Oder-Niesse line and the Baltic States. The Oder-Niesse line will be no more recognised or legally determined as a boundary after the Helsinki summit than it was previously. Our policy on that, de jure, will be unchanged. Similarly, we recognise the Baltic States as part of the Soviet Union de facto, not de jure. That position, too, remains unchanged.
Let me reinforce and reiterate what I said to hon. Members about the Brezhnev doctrine. The position on that is simply this: the Brezhnev doctrine, as it has come to be called, is simply the statement by the leader of one nation, made by him unilaterally and arbitrarily, to describe his views on the rights and responsibilities of the State he represented. It is no more and no less than that. There is nothing in the CSCE, nothing in any of its tenets, which endorses or upholds that doctrine. Indeed, Principle 4 of basket 1, which was finally approved for submission to the Heads of Government
1338
yesterday, specificaly and categorically repudiates that doctrine. It is not for me or for hon. Members to decide whether others in this place will continue to say that the doctrine is valid, but they cannot do so relying on texts of the CSCE.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). He made a point of criticism which is important in terms of understanding the nature of the Government's policy and the character of this debate. He first complained about some of the language I used, and then apologised for complaining because he said I had used it in response to an interjection. However, he was wrong in both particulars. He is entitled to complain that Ministers should get their language right, whether it is prepared or unprepared. He was wrong to complain firstly, because it was appropriate. When I said that it was no good describing the world as how we would like to see it and that we should accept it as it is, I did not mean that I did not want to see the world changed and improved. Like most of my hon. Friends, I am in politics for that single objective. What I meant was that we should not pretend that change and improvement can come about more quickly and easily than is reasonable.
It is normally the Government side of the House which is accused of having false, naive views of how soon the world can be changed and improved, but we are not guilty of that today. Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion described as naive those who expected too much out of the CSCE summit, I can only assume that he had in mind the hon. Member for Stretford, who actualy said that we should not sign any of these documents unless we had an assurance that the Soviet Union would move towards the Western style of democracy. If that is his view of how East-West negotiations are to be conducted, I think that he has a great deal to learn.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked, legitimately, a central question. He said, "What will come out of CSCE?". The answer is, of course, not as much as any of us hope. We would be wrong to delude ourselves about that or to pretend anything

1339
different. That is the nature of the agreement. It is the nature of all international agreements, particularly between two systems which are so diverse and different, and in some cases so fundamentally opposed, as those of the Soviet Union and its allies and those of Western Europe.
I should like to give an example. The right hon. Member for Brighton. Pavilion is one of the many people, including the Prime Minister, who have this afternoon paid tribute to the co-ordination that has been carried on by the EEC. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to make sure that no supervision over Community affairs was exercised by the Soviet Union and its allies. He is quite right. But the Soviet Union feels very nearly the same about COMECON and the necessity to make sure that no supervision is exercised over those countries by the Western countries of the EEC.
The detailed achievements and areas in which we hope to make practical progress are always limited by the need to make agreements. That is the nature of the dilemma that has faced the negotiators. In this matter we have to press for getting the best deal that is possible and the maximum amount of concessions. We have to get a good deal. But we have to make sure that in that process we give very little. Sometimes that means that achievements we would like to see are not obtained. But equally, it means—and I think that this is fundamentally important in an area in which caution is essential—that we do not concede anything that it would be dangerous to concede. As I have said time after time, that, I hope, above all else, characterises the nature of the progress we have made over the last two years.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked about the status of the document which, hopefully, will be endorsed in Helsinki in 14 or 15 days' time. I can only repeat to him that its status remains essentially political rather than legal. If it is enforced and enforceable, it will be enforced at the bar of world opinion. It will be enforced as a result of pressure from the neutrals, who, both East and West, are, I think, anxious to impress. It will be enforced by
1340
Members of this House and the people of this nation, by drawing the attention of other Governments to what they have promised in Helsinki and asking them to put actual flesh on the bones erected there.
That is true in two particulars, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Basket 3 talked generally about a freer flow of information. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that meant that the Daily Express and The Times will be sold in Moscow. He asked whether it meant that jamming will be reduced. Jamming is being reduced. I am open to correction, but I believe that the BBC broadcasts are no longer jammed by the Soviet Union. However, it now becomes our duty—Government, Opposition and the people alike—to build on the generality and to obtain the specifics.
That is equally true of basket 2, which sets the framework for trade. But it does not mean that any trade pattern is specified. We must build on the framework of Helsinki.
In the last two minutes of the debate, I return to perhaps the most important question that has been raised. It is a question to which, in the 120 seconds left, I cannot do great justice, but nevertheless, something must be said about it. I refer to Portugal. We need to acknowledge that Portugal is not the product of Soviet aggression. Portugal is not Hungary. It is not Czechoslovakia. If we pretend that, we are deluding ourselves—and perhaps some of us are comforting ourselves.
Portugal has come about because many of us did not take democracy in Portugal seriously enough early enough. Portugal has come about because many of us were prepared to accept any structure which did not support the Soviet Union. To put it crudely, in my blunt Yorkshire language, some felt that "They might be dictators, but at least they are our dictators". That is not an acceptable moral position, or an acceptable position in practice, as Portugal is now showing.
What CSCE is supposed to do is to break down some of these old prejudices and abandon the barriers as a result of which the tragedy which might still overcome Portugal—although all of us hope this will not be the case—is not likely to happen in other countries; that is, if East

1341
and West can talk about political morality and understand that there are principles which are, I hope, permanently irrevocable, and which we shall observe ourselves and urge other nations to observe with the same degree of sincerity.
Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Tom King: I beg to move,
That this House notes with deep concern the announcement of an estimated £300 million deficit for the Post Office in the current year, only three months after the Chancellor's budget estimate was a deficit of £70 million; deplores the failure of Ministers to advance any coherent strategy to meet the critical situation of the Post Office, or to exercise any effective financial control over it; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Industry immediately to set up an independent inquiry to identify the options for the future operation of the Post Office and to make recommendations.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office; and endorses the Government objective of phasing out the deficits of the nationalised industries and restoring them to profitability'.
Mr. King: This is the latest chapter in the very sad and clearly quickening saga of the problems of the Post Office. Public confidence in what used to be one of the prides of our nation—the efficiency and economy of the Post Office—was undoubtedly enormously weakened by the price increases and problems of last March, and that weakened confidence has had no chance to re-establish itself before this latest bombshell—one can use no lesser word—has broken on the British people. Charges are to be yet further increased. To many people, it seems that the Post Office's financial system is out of control and that the Government and the management are at a loss to know what to do about it.
Our Post Office can still stand comparison on an international basis, but anyone who looks further than the present situation recognises that the trends are extremely worrying. The service is deteriorating, and costs are rocketing. It is right that we should address ourselves to this situation.
On 15th April the deficit was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as

1343
£70 million. A hint appeared in The Guardian of 29th April, which reported:
"The Post Office yesterday denied reports that its published estimates for a 1975–76 deficit of £50 million relied on faulty arithmetic and that a more recent assessment of the sums produced a loss figure of about £300 million."
The Guardian also included a statement from the Post Office that no further price increases were envisaged for the present calendar year. We see a story in the Daily Express today, however, which alleges that the Treasury has claimed that the Post Office gave false figures about its profits this year and that part of the Chancellor's Budget Statement was based on these figures. The report says:
"Senior Treasury officials claim that Mr. Healey had not tried to disguise the corporation's financial plight, but that the Post Office had hidden the truth, hoping that there would be a further State aid later this year."
That is a very serious allegation indeed. It is not for us to enter into inter-governmental arguments of this nature but obviously the House must be concerned that within a week of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement I was told in a Written Answer that the Chairman of the Post Office had been to see Ministers to inform them that the expected loss would be rather greater than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had anticipated. What is the House and the country to think when within three months of the statement by the Chancellor—who presumably has access to the best information—that the loss was to be £70 million it becomes clear that the deficit is £300 million? What confidence can we have that it is now £300 million if within three months £230 million is added to the first forecast? This is the acute worry of those of us who are concerned about the problems of inflation and the Government's own finances. The Government amendment
"regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office."
That might have been a good amendment if it had been tabled 12 months ago. It is not so good now that the Chancellor has assessed the total liability of such financial limitations as might have been responsible for the present situation at £70 million. Where has the further £230 mil-
1344
lion come from? I can understand the Government's difficulty in trying to find an amendment which would command some sort of support in the House but I hope we will not face the problems of the Post Office by looking backwards. If this is going to degenerate into a "Yah boo, it was your fault, no, it was yours" sort of argument we shall never tackle the real problems which everyone in the Post Office recognises it is facing.
In the second half of the Government's amendment, reference is made to the objective of phasing out the deficits of the nationalised industries and restoring them to profitability. I do not think anybody would seriously challenge that objective, but we are bound to consider the Government's strategy, and whether it is likely to work. Our motion deplores the failure of Ministers to advance any coherent strategy to meet the critical situation of the Post Office or exercise any effective financial control over it, and when one looks at the size of the deficit one sees that no further illustration is needed to explain what is meant by the exercise of effective financial control.
The objective of phasing out the deficit is extremely worthy, but it is to be met by enormous price increases. When we talk of a coherent strategy, we mean that the Government should speak with one voice. In the Second Reading debate on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill on 9th June, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
"The alternative of large price increases can be self-defeating in some industries. We are seeing signs of it in the postal services, where large price increases result in falling sales, making it even more difficult for the industry to pay its way, and, in the longer term, it must affect employment prospects."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 56.]
That is precisely right. There is every evidence that the strategy followed in the March round of price increases is having exactly that effect. Rising prices are causing a rapid decline in traffice. I was told in a Written Answer yesterday that first-class traffic had fallen by 26·2 per cent. over the corresponding period last year. In reply to a similar question a month after the price increases, I was told that the fall in first-class traffic had been 25 per cent. The evidence therefore is that there is an increasing shift away from first-class traffic.

1345
There has been no information from the Minister on metered traffic, so we still do not know what is actually happening to business metered traffic. My understanding is that a tremendous number of businesses which are acutely conscious of the costs they face in all directions, have taken tough action on the procedures they follow over mail. When the metered figures come through I think we shall see that they are substantially down.
I turn now to the telephone service. A lot of people do not appreciate the interaction of the changes in the unit time and unit cost. Since 1970 the charge for a six-minute local call at peak time will, following these increased charges, have gone up by 600 per cent. I know of businesses where the staff are not permitted to post a first-class letter without the authority of the manager. I know of instances where similar controls are exercised over telephone calls. It was not until the last round of telephone increases that many people realised that it was cheaper to telephone in the afternoon than in the morning, and that a number of actions to reduce costs were open to businesses.
The Government are embarking on a strategy of yet further price increases as though they are confident that that is the way to solve the deficit. Yet they admit, and the Minister of State admitted it in his answer to me yesterday, that they do not yet know what the effect of the last round of price increases has been.
I have referred on the postal side to the absence of any evidence on the effect on metred traffic. Such evidence as we have points to a drop of 26.2 per cent. on first-class traffic and a drop of 8½ per cent. on the estimate of total traffic. On telephones, I asked what evidence there was of a reduction in telephone usage, and I was given a remarkable answer which said
"We have spoken with the Post Office, which points out that it is too early to judge the impact of the recent tariff increases".
There is then another paragraph and the answer then goes on to say that the
"judgment is that the impact of the tariff increases has been substantially as was assumed when the increases were proposed."—[Official Report, 14th July, 1975; Vol. 895, c. 364.]
I am prepared to believe the first answer, which is honest and right. What evid-
1346
ence is there that the drop is not substantial?
It is worth considering how some of these price increases are being proposed. In the latest POUNC letter to people asking for a comment on the telephone tariff increase it is stated that the Post Office has chosen to increase charges because that will enable people to mitigate their cost by reducing their usage. What would the Price Commission say to a bread manufacturer who said, "You cannot complain about the price increase because people can eat less if they do not like the higher price." One needs to look carefully at the figures in the POUNC report. The report has not been widely circulated. It estimates that average increase in cost for a business in terms of telephone calls will be from £155 to £262 in a year. That is obviously quite a small business. Other businesses with substantial telephone usage will suffer equivalent very substantial increases.
We therefore face a situation in which the increase in postal charges will have gone up this year from 4½p first class to 8½p, and in which telephone charges will have risen 600 per cent. since 1970. One can see just how far price escalation has gone. The last round of increases evoked an enormous storm. POUNC said that it had never before had such a substantial number of protests. I wonder what the impact of this increase will be, and I wonder whether Ministers have estimated what is likely to happen to some of the essential traffic elements. Take mail order, for example. I have seen figures quoted which show that following the latest increase in March, mail order companies arranged to avoid sending 20 per cent. of their traffic through the post, relying instead on alternative arrangements. It is now estimated that as much as 50 per cent. of this traffic may be sent by alternative means.
The Minister of State will be aware of the reports made by mail order publishers and publishers in general who were faced with tremendous increases in costs at the previous round and for many of whom the present increase will spell disaster. I wonder what the increases will do to the Christmas card trade. It is ironic that in the mail today I should have received a note about the House of Commons Christmas card issue. I hope that there

1347
will not be too big a print order, under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because it will cost 6½p to send cards and this is bound to have a serious effect on the numbers posted.
I was advised that the previous increases made a considerable amount of direct mail more marginal and put a lot of it out of court. These increases will certainly kill a substantial amount of valuable traffic which the Post Office has been trying to develop through its marketing departments. In its last report POUNC drew attention to the value of the commercial and business traffic to the Post Office, and how this very important part underpinned a lot of overheads and general costs. If there is a substantial fall in that traffic the implications are obviously extremely serious.
The other aspect—and this is what worries me about the Government's strategy—concerns telegrams. In March it was possible to send a 10-word telegram for 60p. If these increases go through the minimum charge will be £1·40p. Many people think that the minimum charge is 70p but it is, in fact, 70p plus 7p for each word. One can send a telegram for 70p, but if one wants to put anything in it the cost will be £1·40p.
Is the Post Office trying to price itself clean out of the market? In my constituency telegrams are very much a life-line for poor members of the community, particularly for those who cannot afford a telephone. How are they to manage if the cheapest way of making urgent contact with a member of their family will cost £1·40p or more? What concerns me is that what is happening with the telegram may be carried through into the postal side.
There are various items on which I should like the benefit of the Minister's advice. One of the things the Post Office is worried about is the pension fund. On 9th June the then Minister of State, Treasury said:
"the circumstances surrounding the deficiency are complex and we are still discussing with the Post Office the best way to deal with it." —[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 152.]
Has there been any resolution of that problem yet?
Secondly, I presume that the costs, charges and estimates were worked out
1348
on the basis of the on-going wage commitments of the Post Office. I understand that one of those commitments is a form of cost of living adjustment of 1 per cent. for every 1 per cent. rise in the cost of living index. Under the Government's anti-inflation policy, will that cost of living bonus be controlled, and will it affect the amount that the Post Office will have to pay out in the present year? I understand from page 5 of the White Paper that this will be one of the contractual obligations that the Post Office will be entitled to terminate.
Thirdly, on the particular provision regarding the cuts in services and the changes in services, the newspaper account said that it was proposed to delay second class mail to the third day. Is it intended to delay all second class mail to the third day, so as to try to ensure some advantage for first class post and to try to prevent any further deterioration in traffic? Further, the Minister of State refused on an earlier occasion to give me an undertaking, in view of the financial situation of the Post Office, that there will be no further proposal from the Government to extend any further public ownership into telephone manufacturing and to extend the Post Office's activities in that area. Is it not clear that in the present situation, given the problems that management so clearly faces in the Post Office, it would be sheer lunacy to try to expand the Post Office's remit yet further into telephone manufacturing?
Our motion calls for an independent inquiry. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) is present and that he is chairing a Select Committee on this very subject. I think that my hon. Friend will accept the magnitude of the problem and the scale of the public's concern over a situation which calls for something even more wide-ranging than the remit of a Select Committee. Obviously we shall look with great interest at the Select Committee's report. It will be most valuable material for an independent inquiry. There is also need for something more than a view by POUNC, I am not surprised that Lord Peddie said how appalled he was at the way in which events have proceeded. On the 3rd January the

1349
council was sent some urgent representations regarding the largest increases ever. It was told that its answers had to be received by the end of January. Apologies were made and it was said that that situation would never be repeated. What happened? On 16th July the council received further urgent representations regarding further increases and the council has to make its representations by early August. In other words, the council received the same three weeks' notice in which to consider massivley important and far-reaching proposals for the future of the Post Office.
The situation that I have described puts the council in an impossible situation. We believe that an inquiry must consider the options that are now facing the Post Office. It will have to consider whether the management set-up and the organisation of the Post Office in its present structure is right, or whether it should be divided into two separate corporations. It will have to consider whether it is realistic to have a chairman and chief executive doubling in the same rôle—one man doing the two jobs. What is the scope for reductions in manning?
The POUNC Report in paragraph 22—this was a prelude to the March increases—stated:
"We are convinced that in the Post Office, as in most large organisations, there is considerable scope for cost reductions which would not prejudice quality of service or employment. We were disappointed to find no evidence of realisation by the Post Office of the vital need for such action."
That is a very serious charge to make, but unfortunately that is the belief that many members of the public share. Against that background it is clear that if the public are to recognise the problems faced by the Post Office and the options that are before it, and if they are to have any confidence that the Government, the Post Office management, the unions and the House are taking any interest in these problems, an urgent independent inquiry should be held in order to report on the problems.
If we do not proceed with an inquiry, it seems that the Government strategy will be a steady deterioration of service, and a rapid increase in price. There will then not be minor changes on the margin—for example, no second rural deliveries and other rural services being cut—but the whole national service will be rapidly
1350
taken outside the range of a considerable number of people. Anyone who has read the Age Concern pamphlet will know that that is a real problem—namely, that Post Office services are being priced out of people's pockets. People are asking whether there is any price level at which the Post Office can provide an acceptable service and still make a profit.
That is why we welcome the opportunity that this debate provides. That is why we censure the Government for their lack of any coherent strategy. That is why we call for an urgent and immediate independent inquiry into the future of the Post Office.
7.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office; and endorses the Government objective of phasing out the deficits of the nationalised industries and restoring them to profitability'.
I always listen with considerable interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable authority on the Post Office. Indeed, he worked closely with the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in the first few years of the life of the Post Office as a public corporation when the working relationship between it and the Government was being established. However, I am a little disappointed having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight. It was less constructive than I had hoped. It was less constructive than the speeches and debates which we have had in the House over the past few years. During that time I think that genuine attempts were made by both sides of the House to put forward constructive proposals to the Government of the day.
I know that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) does not see it ever as his duty to put anything constructive before the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is afraid that he is storing up hostages for the future. It is unfortunate that perhaps the hon.

1351
Member for Bridgwater is following his example. From our point of view, and from the point of view of those who have taken part in Post Office debates over many years, the hon. Gentleman's speech was not what we expected from him.
Before I discuss the motion and the amendment I shall make a few general observations. It is obvious, yet none the less necessary to make the point, that we are discussing the Post Office against the background of an unprecedented rate of inflation in this country, at least in modern times, and a rate higher than that of many Western European countries. Until we get inflation under control—and our White Paper published last week shows we are determined to do so—the difficulties being faced by the Post Office will continue.
Inflation hits hard all nationalised industries, but the Post Office, with its very large number of employees and its high wage bill, is perhaps more vulnerable than most. I have no doubt that this evening many criticisms will be made. But it is part of the value of a debate such as this that it gives the House of Commons an opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chairman and the Board of the Post Office how public opinion sees the organisation for the management of which they are responsible. However, criticisms which ignore the high inflation in which the Post Office has to operate would be unconstructive and unfair.
The second point I want to make is that though I am happy to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions and to defend the Post Office so far as the Government's responsibilities are involved—that is my job—I do not run the Post Office. There is no longer a Postmaster-General. If Conservatives want me to defend every dot and comma of the Post Office's proposals or to justify every action the corporation has taken the implication is that they want the Post Office reconstituted as a Government Department. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect Ministers to accept responsibility for everything a nationalised industry does and at the same time criticise them for excessive intervenion in its affairs.
1352
It is not many weeks ago that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry was loudly criticised by the Opposition when he sought to comment on the loss of jobs in the steel industry. This is a matter that concerned a great many of us at that time.
Another fundamental question is whether the Post Office is to be run as a social service or as a commercial organisation. The statute that made the Post Office an independent corporation provided for the latter and I believe that to be right. The Post Office has its social obligations under the Act and it takes them seriously. But this does not relieve it of its statutory obligations to pay its way. The corporation the unions and the Government are united in the belief that this should be so.
Another question I want to pose is how far the taxpayer or the consumer should pay for the Post Office services bearing in mind that the taxpayer is the man in the street. We believe that the consumer should pay—and pay according to the use he makes of the service. Industry and commerce are the main users of the Post Office and I do not see why the taxpayer should subsidise their telephone calls or their mail. We have never concealed the fact that getting the nationalised industries back to realistic prices will be painful. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear. But we are determined to phase out these subsidies and we are ready to accept the consequences.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater was at pains to say that in a debate such as this we should not look to the past, but since the Conservatives were in charge of Post Office affairs for four years out of the five years since 1970, we are entitled as a House to look critically at what happened over that four-year period. I remind the House that the basic reason why the Post Office—this also applies to other nationalised industries—has had to make a succession of price rises is that the previous Government artificially held their prices down from 1971 onwards.
Let us remember that the Post Office Corporation in the first years of its existence made a modest profit—as the old Post Office did. In 1971–72 its profit was £36 million. But the imposition by the

1353
Conservative Government of price-controls immediately put them into a deficit situation. In 1972–73 that deficit was £64 million and in 1973–74 it had reached £128 million. Furthermore, the corporation's difficulties were sharpened by the increasing rate of inflation. As a result, the Post Office deficit in 1974–75 exceeded £300 million and it was estimated at the beginning of this calender year that, if no remedial action were taken, it could reach £700 million in 1975–76.
Tariff increases, which were implemented in the spring, were designed to reduce the 1975–76 deficit to £50 million at 1974 prices—or £70 million at current prices. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Daily Express. I had my attention drawn to that matter, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe everything I read in the Daily Express. Furthermore, I hope that the House will not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments on that piece. However, the deficit is now estimated at £300 million. This must be a matter of great concern to each and every one of us.
In explanation, let me first say that when the Post Office prepared the forecasts on which its spring tariff increases were based, the board assumed a narrower interpretation of the social contract than proved to be the case. It also assumed a rate of inflation for 1975–76 which proved optimistic. In the event, wage increases were higher than had been allowed for.
These higher levels of payment, along with their internal consequences for pensions, added £137 million to the estimated deficit. Secondly, the growth of the telephone business has—because of the downturn in the economy—been slower than the Post Office expected. This might have added as much as a further £50 million to the estimated deficit. The remainder is made up chiefly of general cost increases arising from the high rate of inflation.
In this situation there were three practical choices—first, increasing the subsidy, which would in turn have increased public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirements; secondly, accepting a large deficit which also would have increased the public sector borrowing requirement; or thirdly, having sought all due economy, increasing tariffs.
1354
The last was the only one consistent with the Government's general policy for the management of the economy—the objective of phasing out nationalised industry deficits in 1976–77. It was also the only course consistent with encouraging the proper commercial outlook in the Post Office.
Nothing has been more damaging to efficiency in nationalised industries than the continual run of large deficits. That is why the Post Office is putting forward these proposals for tariff increases. At the same time on telecommunications it is taking an opportunity to seek not just to break even but to earn the 2 per cent. on turnover permitted under the Price Cede. One important effect which this will have will be to increase the proportion of the telecommunication investment programme which is internally financed. The programme is a massive one amounting to £810 million in 1975–76.
In the face of all these difficulties the Government have taken positive steps to restore the situation. First, we are determined to restore financial disciplines—disciplines which the payment of continual subsidies has eroded. Secondly, earlier this year we strengthened the Post Office Board through the appointment of a Finance Director and of four distinguished part-time members. Thirdly, we are securing an improved flow of information from the Post Office to the Government on lines recommended by Sir Henry Benson.
The proposals include the provision of corporate plans for each of the main businesses, an annual budget and quarterly return of performance against budget on both finance and physical indicators. They are designed to recognise the legitimate interest of Government in the long-term strategy and efficiency of the Post Office without our getting involved with day-to-day management. All these proposals closely accord with the recommendations on corporate planning made at the end of 1973 by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
Fourthly, whilst we appreciate the savings to be effected by the Post Office, with the help of the trade unions concerned, we as a Government will continue to encourage and support the Post Office in measures to reduce costs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

1355
has made it very clear to the Post Office Board that the Government are looking for the most rigorous economies in the future.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to see whether there is any truth in the report that £100,000 has been spent on the venetian blind escapade, to which no doubt he has had his attention drawn?
Mr. Mackenzie: I have heard about the venetian blinds, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry will take that point on board in his reply.
Mr. Lewis: I asked that question of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, not of my hon. Friend who is to reply. If there is any truth at all in the story, he must be able to give some answer. I do not know whether the figure involved is £100,000, £10,000 or £1,000. Is it true that these people are spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to install electrically-operated venetian blinds in their building?
Mr. Mackenzie: I am concerned about the matter, but at present I am seeking to deal with the broader strategy of the Post Office. I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall see that it is dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Mackenzie: No, I shall not give way again.
Mr. Lewis rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Gentleman has been given a reply by the Minister—
Mr. Lewis: He has not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to pull up the blinds, he can do so at some other time.
Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friend has made his point about venetian blinds and I am sure that those who are concerned with Post Office affairs will put that item high on their list of priorities.
I have to ask the House to recognise that some of the changes which may have to be introduced in the services may not
1356
be palatable. However, it is no good complaining, on the one hand, about the deterioration of the Post Office's financial position, and on the other refusing to entertain the possibility of cost savings through reductions in the services provided.
The motion moved by the hon. Member for Bridgwater calls for an independent inquiry into the affairs of the Post Office. We do not reject in principle the idea of independent inquiries into the nationalised industries. Indeed, we have appointed a committee under Lord Plowden which has conducted such an inquiry into the electricity industry.
We do, however, believe that such inquiries must be set up only when they can make a positive long-term contribution to the development of the industry. We reject entirely their use as some kind of political gimmick, particularly when the proposals come from those whose contribution, when they had power, was far less than ours and who bear the greater part of the responsibility of the problems of the Post Office.
Mr. Tom King: Will the Minister reconsider that last statement? He has accused me of not making constructive suggestions. The Post Office is a very complex business and it would be a presumptuous hon. Member who gave a blueprint on how it should operate. Moreover, the Minister commenced his remarks by making the point that he does not run the Post Office. Then he accused my hon. Friends and myself of failing to run the Post Office properly—he recognises that there is a difference. Wherever the suggestion comes from, he knows that it also comes from outside bodies. Therefore, will he give it serious consideration?
Mr. Mackenzie: I said that we do not reject in principle the proposition of setting up inquiries into any of the nationalised industries. I was simply pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that I should like to have heard from him—in addition to just putting this forward—some kind of contribution about the affairs of the Post Office as a whole, because he is as aware of them as any Conservative Member.
In this connection the House will not wish me to ignore the important contribution made by the Post Office Users'

1357
National Council and hon. Members will know that a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is currently examining an important aspect of Post Office work.
I do not claim—nor does the Post Office Board—that all is perfect in the Post Office. We know that, as in any other large organisation, there are problems to be solved. But I believe that the Post Office is conscious of them and with the help of the trade unions therein is seeking to resolve them. Post Offices throughout the world and certainly all countries in Western Europe are in difficulties as of this moment in time. We all realise that. There are no easy options. I am willing—as is the Secretary of State—to listen to any positive and constructive suggestions which may be put to us from time to time. Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater I find it difficult to accept suggestions from an Opposition which, when they were the Government, saw the first major strike in the Post Office and caused the first major deficit. In contrast this Government are taking constructive steps to help the Post Office and it is in that spirit that I ask the House of Commons to accept the amendment to the Opposition motion which has been tabled tonight.
7.44 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Government's amendment speaks of their objective of phasing out the deficits. I had hoped that the Minister would tell us something of the strategy for phasing out the deficits. However, we have not heard this at all.
It seems strange for a Minister who has just delivered this speech to be complaining about a lack of constructive suggestions, because he has not regaled the House, as was his duty, with any suggestions either from the Government or, presumably, from the Post Office, that could be labelled constructive. Unless the statement about the Government's objective of phasing out deficits is substantiated or some effort is made to clothe it with credible plans, we must suppose that the Government are putting over a confidence trick on the nation.
My hon. Friends and I are not satisfied that the elimination of the Post Office deficit is attainable unless there is legislation to remove the Post Office mono-
1358
poly on letters and to alter the whole strategy of the Post Office in relation to charges. The situation is a spiralling one, and not a word that the Minister has said indicates that the spiral can be cut off. So far, the message to the public from this debate is that they face an endless series of hopeless, overall, ham-handed price increases, none of which will succeed in making the Post Office break even.
This leads me back to the letter monopoly.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman referred to an endless spiral. In my researches for today's debate the most chilling remark I found was a statement apparently made by the Post Office that it could not rule out further price increases this year.
Mr. Wainwright: Indeed, that is an approach to honesty to which the Minister did not refer, which is significant. If the House of Commons is to fulfil one of its main functions, namely, to be a forum to which the nation can look for enlightened information, it is important that Ministers should come clean on this matter. If it is the fact, as I believe, that no phasing out of the deficit is in sight, this should be plainly admitted.
The Post Office monopoly in letters is enormously important because it is the most pervasive monopoly in the land. People can even obtain an alternative water supply if they are resourceful, and thus circumvent the otherwise natural monopoly in water.
However, this is not the case with letters, perhaps except in the case of a gigantic corporation, because in that respect size is quite undeservedly rewarded. For instance, other nationalised industries show little spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood towards the Post Office. Because of their size they often deliver their own missives to their customers. However, the ordinary medium-sized or small business is in the grip of the Post Office letter monopoly, and the individual citizen even more so.
Therefore, in supporting the Conservative amendment, as I intend to recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to do, I hope that we shall hear from the Opposition spokesman at the conclusion of the debate that the inquiry that they

1359
propose does not necessarily start from the assumption that the monopoly must be retained. Nor, I hope, will it start from the position that letter rates must be identical throughout these islands, irrespective of the distance the letter has to travel or the complications of is journey.
My hon. Friends and I do not believe there will be any salvation for the Post Office by simply adding to the overall standard of tariffs for first and second-class mail.
The monopoly does not extend to parcels and newspapers. I have never been able to understand why there should be a monopoly in letters when it is not thought necessary to extend to the carriage and delivery of valuable parcels. I am not suggesting any sudden plunge into a completely new system or structure for the carriage of mail, nor, indeed, necessarily a sudden nation-wide plunge into differential rates for the carriage of letters by the Post Office. However, I believe that pilot experiments are urgently necessary and I hope that they can be woven into the inquiry which is proposed in the motion before us tonight. Until properly-mounted pilot experiments have been made, no one can tell what is the best arrangement for Post Office finances.
For instance, there are rural communities, one of which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), where the Post Office has abandoned responsibility for the daily delivery of mail. The people who are thus suffering are never given the opportunity to say whether they would be willing to pay a higher price for mail to be assured of a daily delivery. That option is not put before them.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Have any of the constituents of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) written to the Scottish Post Office Users' Council about the matter?
Mr. Wainwright: My hon. Friend's constituents have done that, but the answer is that under present legislation the option is not available to them.
I should like to see two experiments carried out locally. I have to be realistic, and I admit that both experiments would have to be carried out
1360
initially in urban areas. The first experiment should be in differential charges in favour of local mail. The imposition of the 8½p first-class rate for carrying a letter from a housebound invalid to a relative on the other side of a small town is an intolerable charge. The Post Office cannot get out of it by saying that it would be cheaper to telephone, because the telephone service is still not available to a vast section of the population.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office collects local mail, puts it on a train, sends it 50 miles away to be sorted, brings it back and delivers it?
Mr. Wainwright: That was not known to me, but it is an interesting addition to the dossier. There is no doubt that for delivery in the same average-sized town a great many of the charges borne by longer-distance letters are virtually eliminated—the station services, conveyance by contractors and, no doubt, a considerable part of the cost of inward and outward sorting. I should look to a reduction of about 25 per cent. as a guess if the true cost of local mail were applied to the first-class rate.
Secondly, I should like to see a local pilot experiment in competition. Until there is competition, the true facts of the situation will never be known. If in the past the theoretical calculations of the Post Office, without the benefit of practical experiment, had been reasonably accurate, I would not raise the question of experiments in other ways of dealing with the mail but, as we are confronted with such a series of gigantic errors in the theoretical calculations, it seems to me that the empirical approach is necessary.
There is some support for that view in the report of the Post Office for the year ended 31st March 1974, one sentence of which reads as follows:
"The only sound basis for Post Office operations is the provision of services which the customer wants and for which he is prepared to pay the true cost."
If the customer wants to have a letter delivered by breakfast-time across his home town, the Post Office is saying in its report that it should be able to charge him the true cost. Manifestly, the Post Office does not do so at present. It charges him what it estimates in a purely

1361
theoretical way to be his share of the overall cost of delivering letters throughout the kingdom. That is not the true cost of which the Post Office speaks in its most recent report.
The true cost can never be accurately decided unless, at any rate in some parts of the country, there is competition by which to test the Post Office estimates of true cost. We cannot establish the true cost unless a competitive situation exists somewhere at some time. That is why I hope that either with an inquiry, or as an early result of an inquiry, pilot experiments of this kind will be conducted.
I have confined myself to the letter service because that is the monopoly aspect which I want to stress. One result of the introduction of pilot experiments, and of notice being served on the Post Office that the old ways are no longer sacrosanct, is likely to be a great deal more freedom, incentive and local accounting for local managers. The local managers of the Post Office—the head postmasters, and so on—in spite of certain improvements in their lot, are still the interpreters of the rule book rather than the local entrepreneurs of the Post Office.
Any chamber of commerce or chamber of trade which has had regular interviews with head postmasters usually ends up by feeling sympathetic with the poor chap who is not allowed to follow up his own ideas or ideas fed to him by his local community, but is mainly there to quote the rule book to those who have complaints or grievances. If there were an atmosphere of loosening up the ancient structure of the Post Office we could achieve a greater degree of incentive or even some autonomy for local managers of the postal services.
If we can be assured at the end of the debate that the inquiry which the Conservatives seek will not start with certain sacred assumptions and will include the possibility of experiments being recommended on a pilot and local basis, I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Opposition motion.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I feel sorry for my hon. Friend the Minister of State because I appreciate that what he did was to read, very ably, the brief which had been prepared for him,
1362
no doubt by the Post Office—by those who had been accused and found guilty—without commenting upon the obvious stupidity of the brief which he read.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Having sat up until 3 o'clock in the morning and having risen by 7 o'clock, to write the speech myself, I take exception to the comments made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Lewis: I withdraw what I said completely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friend sat up until 3 o'clock in the morning writing his speech and if he drew all the facts and figures from his own mind, I must attack him and not the Post Office.
My hon. Friend told the House that the Post Office made a mistake in its budgeting and the £70 million should have been £300 million. If my hon. Friend says that he and not the Post Office made that mistake, I accept his word. I thought that the Post Office had made that little mistake between £70 million and £300 million because it did not know that there was inflation.
It reminds me of that old story of the pianist in the four ale bar saying that he did not know what was going on upstairs. Everybody else in the bar knew, including the boys and girls who were going upstairs, but not the pianist.
Did not the Post Office know that there was not merely inflation but rampant inflation? Did not it know that Post Office workers were asking for increases? One could understand if it were a small difference but here we have a budgeting difference between £70 million and £300 million. There is far too much of Parkinson's Law rampant among the top executives in the Post Office.
I have never dealt with any organisation in 40 years in public life—30 years in his House—which has so rapidly deteriorated and is so shockingly difficult to get to. It is almost impossible to get to anyone concerning these difficulties. When I write to my right hon. Friend or to any of the other people concerned they keep it or play about with it and eventually they tell me to take it up with the Post Office. I have written to Sir William Ryland but I can never get a reply from him. It is always the assistant managing director or deputy managing director or a chief executive or

1363
some other highly paid person. What one eventually receives is the kind of formal acknowledgment that could have been sent within a few days but it takes weeks to get anything back from the Post Office. I have tried month after month and year after year to get legitimate complaints dealt with but have not been able to get them dealt with satisfactorily at all.
We know that members of the public do not usually go to their MPs unless they have themselves first tried to get matters resolved at local level. It is because they have been frustrated and cannot get satisfaction that they come to their MPs. If an MP finds that he and his constituents have reason to regard the services as shocking, at least the head of the concern ought to be able to deal with some of these problems.
The trouble has increased almost annually since the setting up of the so-called Post Office Corporation. Dare I mention that it was at the behest of the right hon. Member for Miami—or should I say Australia?—that this was set up? I opposed him at the time. I said then that I did not want to give up the opportunity of day-to-day questioning and day-to-day debates and arguments. I thought it would land us in trouble and it has, because the service is deteriorating with every price increase that is imposed.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, can remember that 40 or 50 years ago one could pay a penny—a half-penny at the present rate—and post a letter in any part of London, up till about 9 o'clock at night, and it would be delivered without fail the next day, possible even by the first post. There were eight or nine collections during the day and three or four deliveries. That was at a time before we had fast trains, before we had fast motor cars, and before we had electronic aids and sorters. Now we have not only fast trains and electronic sorters but an 1,800 per cent increase in price, and the prices are still going up even further.
If one does not get a letter into the first-class post by about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, one cannot expect to have it delivered the next day from one borough in London to another. The Post Office knows about this because it has piles of correspondence from me. I have had
1364
to deliver my own mail from Westminster to Stratford, just down the road, because I could not be sure of getting it there if I posted it after 5 p.m., even with first-class priority. Indeed, I had one case—this is in the 1970s, not the 1870s—of a letter posted at County Hall, London SE1, not County Hall, Buckingham, marked "urgent" and posted first class, with priority, at County Hall. It was from the Clerk to the County Council and it took exactly a week to get from one side of Westminster Bridge to the other. I am still waiting for an explanation from the Post Office why this delay should occur. I repeat that this is in the 1970s, not the 1870s.
I challenge anyone to say that he can post a letter from one part of London to another and be sure of having it delivered next day. I am talking about letters not to the wilds of Scotland but to other parts of London.
Last year, on 13th September, I suddenly remembered my wife's birthday and that I had not sent her a card. Realising that it was midday on the day before her birthday, I immediately rushed out and bought a card. I was going to put a first-class stamp on it and post it at the post office. The sorting office is at the top of my road. Just as I was putting it in the box, the chap came to collect the mail at 1.30 p.m. I told him that it was a card for my wife's birthday and that it must get there first thing in the morning. I asked him if it would be all right. He said that I could not rely on it. I pointed out that the address was only just down the road. He told me: "What happens is that we collect it now, we take it all the way up to Mount Pleasant where it is sorted and then it comes all the way back." This is a farcical situation.
That is not the worst of it. I read a letter, which has not been disproved, stating that a person in the Norwich area posted a letter for local delivery in Norwich. It was put on the train and sent to Norwich, and then from Norwich to Peterborough and back from Peterborough, before it was delivered locally in the Norwich area. Well might the cost be excessive when this sort of thing goes on.
This is not the fault of the postman who does the work. This is the fault of the £27,000-a-year people. When I went

1365
to see Sir William Ryland, because I could not get satisfaction locally, I was met at the door by one flunkey, taken to another flunkey, and then to another flunkey at the lift. Eventually I went up to the people who were expecting me. I was met by a large number of top executives. The Post Office is overstocked with over-paid top people who should be getting down to the job of ensuring that the service gets back at least to the efficiency of 50 years ago.
Is it too much to ask for that on a day when there is a link-up in space between the Americans and the Russians, and when people are able to go to the moon? Today one cannot be sure of getting a letter delivered on time, no matter what one pays, even 1,800 per cent. extra. I do not think that the ordinary Post Office workers are getting 1,800 per cent. more than they used to get. No doubt that is what Sir William is getting. But still one cannot get a letter from one London borough to another the following day or be sure that it will be delivered.
When one turns to the telephone service it is almost the same. It is quite right, as has been said, that old-age pensioners cannot now afford the telephone, which for many of them is their only means of contact with their friends or relatives. Many old people have bad legs and cannot walk well enough to get out. Some cannot afford to send letters. Some cannot write. Now things are getting to the stage when they cannot afford to telephone. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue.
I am a great supporter of the Post Office worker and I think he does a good job in difficult circumstances, but there is an urgent need for some inquiry to be made into the administration—I should probably have said maladministration—of the top people.
I resent the attitude of mind resulting in the appointment of what are called part-time members. What on earth are we coming to in this respect? I read recently of a well-known figure who is violently opposed to wage increases—wages, not incomes—and who is much in favour of wage restraint and wage reduction. He is always attacking the trade unions. He writes articles at £300 and £400 a time and is well paid for appear-
1366
ing on radio and television, where he is always saying that wages should be cut down. Then I pick up a newspaper and I discover that his wife has been made part-time chairman of a board at a salary of £7,000 a year. How much will these part-timers get? Probably more than the postmen. That is very good. But I should prefer to see people doing a job and getting paid for it, which is not the case now.
I am afraid that I cannot support the Government amendment. I have not seen any improvement. I cannot see any improvement being made until someone kicks in the pants those top executives in the Post Office Board. If that does no good, they should be kicked out and replaced by others who can do the job.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I very much enjoyed the speech calling for a return to the good old days from the Conservative Member—for this evening—for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I am not sure whether there will be room for the hon. Gentleman permanently on the Opposition benches, but at least he pointed out that progress does not always bring improvement with it. Certainly that seems true of the Post Office.
I never believed that the Minister of State had not written his own speech. From time to time, we are amused by his turn of phrase. This evening, he said that he did not always read what he believed in the Daily Express. But I was surprised by some of his remarks yesterday afternoon when he replied to a Question of mine about the increase in postal charges for books and magazines. If prizes were awarded to Ministers for odd statements, I would enter into the contest the remark that he made about it not being the job of the Post Office to subsidise our industries when it came to postal charges for books and magazines. Far from being subsidised, in 18 months our publishers have had to face increases in some charges of 200 per cent., and some increases have amounted to 400 per cent. since 1971.
It was not so very long ago that Sheikh Yamani said that it was not the job of Saudi Arabia to subsidise the industries of the West. This is the kind of subsidy that we are getting from the Post Office. Increases in postal charges of this

1367
kind can be compared only with the increases that we have experienced in the price of oil. No other commodity has gone up in price so much as the postal charges on books and magazines. Once upon a time it was said that trade followed the book overseas. Once upon a time postal rates for books going abroad were cheaper than in other countries. Today the reverse is true. Our overseas postal rates for books and magazines are rocketing ahead of those of our competitors.
Some publishers of magazines and books will be able to defend themselves. I sit on the council of one of the largest consumer magazines the magazine Which? published by the Consumers Association. We shall have to think of new ways of delivering our magazine. Reader's Digest is already implementing its own self-delivery service. We may have to go in with it. A lot of magazine producers will have to look to some kind of self-delivery service, which will reduce the revenue of the Post Office still further. But many magazines will not be able to defend themselves. These crushing increases will mean the end of 100, 100 or perhaps even 500 of the smaller specialist magazines in the course of the next year or so. They will not be able to defend themselves.
I turn now to another section of the community which cannot defend itself—the pensioners. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West pointed out, they are very hard hit by these increases. Many of them cannot move about as freely as can younger members of the community. It is an imposition and a burden for them to go down the street to visit their nephews and nieces. It is infinitely easier for them to make a telephone call or to post a letter. This section of the community will find it increasingly hard to keep in touch with friends and relatives living across the other side of their towns.
For some people, it will be even worse. The telephone is not just a means of easy social communication. It is a real social lifeline which people need to link themselves to the rest of the community. If they cannot afford to use the telephone, they are cut off completely from the community.
1368
Old people are also more dependent on television for their entertainment. The increases in television licence fees have also been a severe burden on many of them.
I suggest to the Government that they should consider the introduction of a postal voucher system for retirement pensioners. I suggest that, once a quarter, every pensioner should be given a £1 postal voucher to be exchanged for stamps, to pay telephone bills or to be used towards the fee for a television licence. We have 8 million retirement pensioners. If every pensioner were given one of these vouchers once a quarter, the total cost would come to only 4 per cent. of the annual wage bill of the Post Office as it is running at the moment.
There are ample precedents. We have had beef vouchers, butter vouchers, and reduced rates for pensioners on public transport during off-peak hours. I ask the Government to look seriously and sympathetically at this proposal. Pensioners need postal services to keep them in touch with the rest of the community. The present proposed swingeing increase in costs will cut their lifeline.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I must first declare my interest as an assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union.
All those who work in Post Office telecommunications must be concerned about the massive financial deficit. They will be particularly concerned, because it overshadows the substantial progress made by the Post Office and its staff over recent years. In the last 10 years, the telecommunications system has more than doubled in size. A good start has been made on modernisation, and the quality of service has improved. This has been made possible by massive increases in productivity. While the size of the system has increased by 104 per cent. the number of staff engaged on the system has increased by only 24 per cent.—a saving in manpower of 78,000 engineering and 12,400 other staff.
As I have said before, had this productivity record been equalled in private industry there would by now have been talk of an economic miracle rather than a crisis. There have been smaller price

1369
increases for telecommunications than for the generality of goods and services. By the end of the year the price index probably will have gone up by over 250 per cent. since 1964. At the present level, telecommunications tariffs will have gone up by 191 per cent. Even if the proposed price increases are taken into account, the tariff increase, comparable with the 250 per cent. for general prices, will still be only 222 per cent. The general level of increases in telecommunications has been lower than that of prices in the private sector.
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Golding: I refuse to give way.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have a question.
Mr. Golding: I listened with disgust to the contribution of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and I certainly do not intend to give way to him this evening. Certainly, those who have seen the television advertisements will agree that telecommunications gives real value for money.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not employed by a Post Office union.
Mr. Golding: Why, then, the present Post Office crisis? It stems initially from the fact that for a long time under the last Government Post Office prices were not allowed to rise at the same rate as other prices; and while the Post Office has had to pay more in wages and for equipment, in line with general inflation, it has not been allowed to recover this extra expenditure from its customers. Consequently and naturally, deficits have piled up. This policy, which was pursued so ruthlessly by the last Tory Government, was absolutely disastrous. If prices do not increase again this year the telecommunications side will have to borrow to cover its deficit. This is a burden which it should not have to bear—and neither should taxpayers, many of whom, such as widows, are too badly off to be able to afford telephones, have to subsidise telephone customers.
My view is that that is economic nonsense and a social injustice. There should be special provision for those who need the telephone as a lifeline, particularly the house-bound and disabled. But we should not leave this to local authorities because
1370
the provision is so different from one authority to another; and neither should it be a responsibility of the Post Office Corporation. The responsibility should be taken over fairly and squarely by the Government and particularly by the Department of Health and Social Security.
Although the initial and basic cause of the financial crisis was the policy of Tory Ministers, it has to be acknowledged that there has been an error of judgment this year. My guess is that the error—or rather errors, for there were two—were made against a general optimism supported by the Treasury, that there would be a slackening of inflation. The level of inflation was underestimated and the level of business activity, and, therefore, of demand for Post Office services, was overestimated.
The Government have done well to recognise this and to state bluntly that the last increases should have been greater than they were. We are now correcting the decision, which erred on the side of optimism. It must be said that the financial crisis facing the Post Office has been heightened by the reluctance of the Treasury to meet the pre-1969 pension fund deficit of £55 million for telecommunications and £35 million for posts, although it came ill from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to criticise, because I believe he is the only hon. Member to speak in this debate tonight who was a party to the decision at that time, in that he took part in the debates on the 1969 Act and had subsequently—
Sir George Young: Does not the hon. Member recall voting for the Act which set up the Post Office Corporation, which included specific provisions for the pension fund about which he is complaining?
Mr. Golding: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would do his homework rather better. I entered Parliament in 1969—two weeks after the Act was implemented, so that it would not have been possible for me to vote for that Act. But it is now a matter of very great concern to the Post Office unions that the Treasury should assume the full responsibility for these old Civil Service pensions. We feel very strongly on that. The language of the original

1371
motion is that of an intemperate and irresponsible Opposition. I would never wish to express myself in terms so extravagant but perhaps I may in a more moderate manner echo one of its underlying sentiments.
The Government must pay careful attention to the need to take a fresh look at the future of telecommunications. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, of whose promotion certainly those in Post Office Engineering were delighted to hear —and I was personally particularly delighted to hear of it—will not be surprised to hear me say once again that there is a need for a national telecommunication policy which will lead to the integration of telephony, data transmission and broadcasting. He will know, too, of my view that the private manufacturers, who have so failed the Post Office and its customers, should be taken into public ownership. Most important, however, is the need for the Government not only to stick firmly to their present policy towards prices, enabling a higher level of self-financing of investment, but also to bring about a greater certainty of stability in investment.
Part of the present problem stems from the stupid Barber cuts of December 1973. Unfortunately, the present Government have not yet removed the uncertainty about investment that both management and staff would wish and which is essential for the efficient running of the industry. My hon. Friend must persuade the Treasury to announce the abandonment of "stop-go" policies for nationalised industry investment. It is essential that approval be given as quickly as possible to the 1976–77 investment programme.
I reject the call for an inquiry. The management and staff in telecommunications are highly competent. In parenthesis I should say that the Post Office Union leadership has a great deal of confidence in Sir William Ryland and his board. All in the Post Office must be allowed to get on with their jobs without constant interference from outside. In the past three years there have been 10 Post Office Users' National Council reports on the Post Office. We have had internal Post Office inquiries in addition to the Hardman Inquiry and Prices and Incomes
1372
Board studies. Since the last major inquiry into the Post Office in 1966–67 I have sat on at least three parliamentary inquiries into the Post Office—into its consumer relations, its investment procedures and, at present, its letter service.
What the Post Office needs more than anything else is not another inquiry and another period of uncertainty; it needs to know where it stands on pricing and investment, so that it can get on with the job. It must be given freedom to fix economic prices and stability in planning and executing its investment policy. With these, assured as it is of the support of a loyal and efficient staff, it will surmount its present difficulties.
8.32 p.m.
Sir George Young: Apart from the political rhetoric which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) felt obliged to include in his speech, I agree with most of what he said. In my remarks I hope to cover some of the main points he outlined. I belatedly congratulate him on his timely arrival in this House, which was just late enough to spare him the embarrassment of voting against the Act to which he now takes exception.
I suspect that I should declare an interest. Until February of last year I was an economic adviser to the Post Office Corporation, and had been for the past four and a half years. I am now on leave—unpaid, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will be pleased to know—and I have an option to return to the Post Office should my constituents unwisely transfer their allegiance elsewhere. My remarks about the Post Office will therefore be tinged with humanity, although I am bound to say that its financial affairs seem to have deteriorated since I left. I also have a sizeable stake in that popular investment medium, the Post Office Pension Fund.
Having worked for nearly five years at the Post Office gives me the advantage, denied to my colleagues, of being able to see the problems of that organisation from the inside as well as from the outside. The first thing I must say is that there are simply no easy solutions to the problems confronting the Post Office. Over the weekend a Labour Member called for the resignation of the chairman. If anyone believes that that is a solution

1373
to the problems facing the Post Office he has failed to understand the nature of the problem.
Such a step would create problems that do not exist now, because the chairman is a hard-working and intelligent man who has spent the whole of his working life in the Post Office and who enjoys the confidence and support of the staff at all levels. To seek to use him as a scapegoat for the problems would aggravate staff relations and would not get anyone anywhere. In all the correspondence that I have had with the Post Office I have received prompt and courteous replies and have not undergone the experiences mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
Nor is there any advantage in criticising the staff of the Post Office at a lower level. My experience was that the engineers and the postmen had a loyalty to their employer which is not found in many institutions these days. I found that they had a genuine pride in discharging their duties cheerfully and efficiently. Some hon. Members believe that there are political solutions which could help the Post Office. Labour Members have from time to time advocated that one of the manufacturers of switching equipment should be nationalised or bought by the Post Office because they believe it would help the Post Office if it owned such a supplier.
That suggestion is basically irrelevant. The current position is that the Post Office defines in fairly broad terms the specification of the equipment it wishes to buy and gets the benefit of the technology and expertise of a range of manufacturers. It also gets the benefit of competitive tendering. If it were to supply and manufacture its own equipment it would forgo both of those advantages. Further, it would be a consequence of its buying up a supplier that it would have that much less money of its own to invest. An immediate consequence of the Post Office "nationalising" a supplier of switching equipment would be a fall in its investment programme. Under Section 13 of the Act the Post Office has the powers to manufacture equipment, but has never chosen so to do, presumably because it believes that the
1374
balance of advantage lies with the existing system.
Some Opposition Members, particularly the spokesman for the Liberal Party, believe that the Post Office monopoly is at the root of the problem and that there is some advantage in doing away with it. There is not much joy in pursuing that solution. It is quite true that if, for example, we offered to a London entrepreneur the letter collection and delivery service within London, he would be able to undercut the Post Office because the cost of collecting, sorting and delivering a letter in London is less than 5½p.
Of course, any Government would insist that a national delivery service be retained. However, the corollary of hiving-off to private enterprise the profitable section of the postal system would be that the Post Office would be left with all the unprofitable sections.
An immediate consequence of breaking the Post Office monopoly would be to increase the subsidy paid by the taxpayer to the Post Office, which is exactly the opposite solution to that which we all wish to see.
A further consequence would be a complication for the public who would have to decide which of the two systems it wished to use for its letters. There would probably have to be two sources or supplies of stamps, perhaps two sets of letter boxes and there might have to be two postmen walking the same street.
The answer lies not in breaking the monopoly but in using the resources within the monopoly more efficiently and ensuring that the Post Office has a sensible and adequate financial framework within which to operate.
Having issued that vigorous defence of various Aunt Sallies, I am bound to say that everything is not well with the Post Office. One can find the reason for the trouble in a White Paper, dealing with the Nationalised Industries, published by the Government in November 1967 called "A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives". I am referring to Cmnd. 3437. In paragraph 33 it says,
"Clear financial objectives will continue to be necessary so that the industries know what is expected of them by the Government…The alternative would be an indefensible lack of control over the return achieved on a very substantial public investment."

1375
That is the alternative that has happened. Both parties share the guilt of allowing that situation to arise.
The investment programme of the Post Office, which, I believe, is some £4 billion spread over five years, has continually been used by the Treasury as a tool for economic management. The Post Office has been asked at the beginning of a financial year to cut back its investment programme and half way through that very same financial year it has been asked by the Treasury to expand. Of course, the investment programme of the Post Office spans some 20 years which is the lead time in telecommunications.
We cannot fool around with an investment programme such as that with the short-term measures that the Treasury has insisted upon. If we treat an investment programme in that way, we shall pay very severe penalties indeed, because the suppliers of the equipment that the Post Office is buying know that the Post Office may be forcd to axe its commitment, and as a result they will build into the price they quote a premium for the uncertainty that surrounds the whole investment programme. Neither the Post Office nor the industry know how much they will spend even next year on telecommunications equipment. This is not the right climate in which the country's largest investor should operate its investment programme. There must be a greater air of certainty surrounding the decisions which it makes.
It is not only the investment programme but tariffs which have been continually interfered with. Tariffs have been kept artificially low by price control, and again the Post Office is paying a very heavy price for that. It has made losses for the past two years, which means that the country is getting a negative return on one of its biggest investments. That has made that much more difficult the inevitable catching-up exercise that we are now going through. Keeping tariffs at an artificially low level stimulates demand which makes it that much more difficult for those inside the Post Office to forecast future demand and to reach a sensible investment policy. The losses have demoralised management. They have reduced the incentive to cut waste and led to the inefficient use of resources.
1376
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West pointed out that the losses incurred by the Post Office are not socially justifiable because the main consumers of its services are businesses and better-off individuals who use the telephone system. Therefore, there is no social justification whatsoever for subsidising the Post Office.
The point that I wish to make from those two illustrations is that Parliament or Governments have created some of the Post Office's problems and that it is no good looking within the Post Office to identify the cause of the problems.
Not only have Governments committed various sins, but there have been sins of omission. The board of the Post Office does not know the social and economic framework within which it has to manage its affairs.
In the 1960s there was a series of Command Papers and Select Committee investigations and a report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Those reports identified relevant and attainable targets at which the Post Office could aim. Throughout the 1960s the Post Office met its targets and, although there was public criticism—there always will be—that criticism never reached the volume that it is now experiencing.
It was in the early 1970s, when financial disciplines were relaxed, that the problems began. The Minister, in winding up the debate, may refer to the target in the Government's amendment—namely, to break even. But before he does, he should re-read the Labour Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, which criticised this kind of target, because it
"prescribes only a minimum standard of financial performance."
The Government must refine and clarify the financial objective of the Post Office, not leave it as a vague obligation to break even.
In addition to asking what the Post Office can do for Parliament, we should also ask what Parliament can do for the Post Office. The clear answer is that the Post Office should be given definite objectives. One of the results of the public inquiry for which my hon. Friends are calling would be the setting of realistic targets for the Post Office.
It is high time that the problems of the Post Office and the options available to it

1377
were exposed to public gaze. One of the hangovers from the Civil Service days of the Post Office is that everything is shrouded in secrecy—that anything that is official is therefore secret.
The public have no chance whatsoever in the few weeks which elapse between the announcement of increases and their implementation of making any constructive suggestions. Nor has the Post Office Users' National Council. Within the existing framework there is no question but to let the Post Office have the increases that it wants, although Parliament usually manages to insist on cosmetic alterations from time to time. We need to take a leisurely look at the framework of the Post Office without a pistol being pointed at our heads relating to specific increases in the pipeline.
It is no secret that, not so long ago the Post Office prepared a document setting out the options confronting the postal service. If it was a secret, it no longer is. The paper set out the implications for the postal service in a clear way. If one insisted that the postal service should break even, it set out the consequences in terms of quality of service. Alternatively, if one said that a certain quality of service was needed, it set out the financial implications. It also set out a range of radical proposals relevant to the solution of the Post Office's problems on which I believe the public are entitled to comment. I suspect that that report is gathering dust in some pigeon hole in Whitehall and that it has never seen the light of day.
A Green Paper on the postal service or a public inquiry, such as is called for by my hon. Friends, would be of enormous interest. It would educate not only the public about the problems of the Post Office but the Post Office about the public's expectations of the service.
Another decision which is shrouded in secrecy concerns the future switching equipment—known anonymously as System X—to be bought by the Post Office. That decision is being taken within the Post Office, but a large number of engineers in this country who do not work for the Post Office could contribute to the important decisions which are about to be taken. The Post Office has no monopoly of wisdom in this matter, having made a particularly serious error of judgment in the 1950s when it decided to
1378
move far too quickly from mechanical to electronic equipment.
I welcome the call made by my hon. Friends for a public inquiry as that is an essential prelude to giving the Post Office relevant commercial obligations.
The search for economies is urgent. If worthwhile economies are to be made, radical and unpopular decisions must be taken. Perhaps we must take a second look at the manning levels of the postal services. For example, the bulk of the work on the postal service is done between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. In both cases full-time postmen do the work. The work of the postmen is amplified to bring up their hours to full-time levels. In practice the work could be done by two sets of part-timers, each working four hours. That step would pose enormous problems for the Post Office and for the morale of those working in the postal service. I do not say that we should necessarily move in that direction. There are no easy solutions. However, we must take radical steps if we wish to obtain worthwhile economies in the system and if the deterioration in the financial position is to be arrested.
While there is a case for the Post Office to have a monopoly of the telephone network, I do not see why it should have a monopoly of the telephone instruments. The public would welcome a choice of instruments and the chance to obtain different kinds of equipment of different specifications from various suppliers. The Post Office could reserve the right to make sure that the equipment was up to the standards required by the network. That would relieve the Post Office of the need to tie up capital in telephone instruments. In other countries a much wider range of instruments is available. A public inquiry could usefully look at that issue.
The liabilities of the Post Office pension fund are not those of the Post Office Corporation. Those liabilities were incurred by the Civil Service before the Post Office was established, and relate to the pensions of those employed by the Civil Service. When the Post Office Corporation was set up, the Government Actuary worked out the liability and the Government credited the new pension fund with the amount of money in question, which was invested notionally in 21 per cent. Consols—a well-known hedge

1379
against inflation. The Corporation was lumbered with this notional stock, which it could not have sold even if it had wanted to do so. It found itself in the indefensible position of a pension fund having all its assets in one fixed-interest stock which it could not sell.
The Labour Party was responsible for this arrangement, which was included in the 1969 Act. The consequences of that decision have dogged all Post Office debates ever since. It will not be satisfactory if every debate on the Post Office —up to the time when the last civil servant concerned dies in the year 2000 and odd—is to be dogged by the question of who is responsible for the pension fund. The Government must sort out this question. I imagine that there is an element of flexibility in the Post Office. I am sure that it is prepared to discuss a settlement. We must remove this consideration from Post Office debates, as it has an artificial effect on the tariff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) asked a question about the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation"—although I believe that it is more of an interference with inflation than an attack on it. That document refers to a £6 limit. The Post Office workers recently concluded a settlement under which they will be entitled to a 1 per cent. increase in wages for every 1 per cent. increase after an 11 per cent. increase in the retail price index. If inflation is not abated within a year the postal workers' may be owed money by the Post Office if the agreed increases take their wages over the £6 limit. Will the Minister say what the Government policy will be if that situation arises? Will he acknowledge that the postal workers agreed to go without a higher increase in pay in return for this arrangement, which links their future pay to the cost of living index? The postal workers would have settled for a much higher figure if the thresholds had been excluded from the agreement.
I think that I can end by quoting paragraph 8 of the previous Labour Gov. ernment's White Paper:
"Increases in costs should wherever possible be absorbed by greater efficiency rather than being passed on to the consumer, and price increases should be capable of being publicly justified".
1380
Those were their own remarks the last time they were in office when dealing with the nationalised industries.
It is in that spirit that I support the motion and condemn the inadequate and complacent amendment that the Government have moved.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I rather feared that the debate would be what was described earlier as a "yahboo" debate. However, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on bringing it up to a very serious level—a level which will be helpful to the House and the Post Office. I say that not because the hon. Gentleman is an ex-colleague of mine—I must declare the same vested interest as he has, as a former Post Officer employee, and as a parliamentary adviser to the Civil and Public Services Association, which has members in the Post Office.
I think it is wrong that this House, politicians generally and members of the public should use an enormous corporation, so vital to this country—a corporation with a record of tremendous service over years and years—as a political football. I shall not repeat many of the very good points that have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton. I want to emphasise three areas of general interest that need to be put clearly in the debate at a very serious level.
The Minister began very well by pointing out that he does not run the Post Office. That is one of the most important things that hon. Members must take on board. I fully appreciate, as a new Member, that people in this House who had been used to getting the Postmaster-General to the Box for detailed questioning and getting detailed answer to letters on all sorts of operational matters of the Post Office, take hard the getting used to the fact that the Minister is now responsible at arm's length for the Post Office. However, it has clearly been shown in one report after another that there is no other way to run a corporation of this size—indeed, no other way to run any of the public corporations—but to allow it, within certain guidelines, to get on with the job and not have the Minister dabbling

1381
in every little detail of the operational matters of the corporation.
In the House we have not only the Minister, with responsibility, as has been pointed out. We have a Select Committee, of which I was a member in the previous Parliament, which is at present investigating a certain aspect of Post Office affairs and which has investigated other aspects of Post Office affairs in the past. We have the Price Comission, to which the Post Office must submit its applications for price increases. We have the House itself taking an interest in Post Office affairs. We have the Post Office Users' National Council, and the other national councils to which matters are referred and to which the public can go with their criticisms and suggestions. In the past we have had interdepartmental committees looking into various aspects of Post Office affairs. We have had indepent inquiries.
We really must allow businesses to get on with the job they have been established to do. We must not plant seeds and then dig them up every five minutes to see whether they are growing, because we shall kill them. I fear that that is what has happened with the Post Office, certainly over the last five or six years, and possibly longer than that.
The Post Office staff, from top to bottom, have become demoralised and disheartened. They have no clear sense of direction, because all the time their investment programmes, pricing policies, pay policies and the whole of their organisation are being interfered with, inspected and pulled out in public view by the House and its Select Committees, interdepartmental inquiries and the whole range of other bodies I have mentioned. This goes too far, at times, and this fact needs to be stated clearly in the House.
The Post Office must be given the chance to run its business as a commercial enterprise, and it cannot do that if it is being hauled over the coals every five minutes to account for everything it does.
We have heard too much criticism in the debate and too many comparisons with the Post Office's services in the past. The Post Office has a staff of 420,000. It is the largest employer in this country. One could hardly get on a bus anywhere in this country without finding a member of the Post Office staff on board. The
1382
Post Office provides 24,000 sub-post offices from Land's End to John o'Groats and it processes 11 billion letters a year. Scarcely any family in the land does not use at least one of its services every week. It may be the collection of a pension, the purchase of postage stamps, the sending of a telegram, the making of a phone call, or any other of a whole range of services.
It is understandable that with 11 billion letters being processed every year, mistakes will be made from time to time, but hon. Members like my hon. Friend for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) should remember that many letters do get to their destination on time, many telephone calls are made efficiently and cheaply, and many other services are provided day in and day out, for 365 days a year, quite successfully and efficiently to the satisfaction of everybody. Of course, people do not come to our surgeries or write to us about services that are provided efficiently and well.
I post letters to my constituency every day and, since I came to this House in February last year, I have not had a single complaint about any letter I have sent. I posted some letters tonight at 7 p.m. and I can almost guarantee that they will be in my constituency on Teesside first thing in the morning. This is a marvellous service, and I have never had cause to complain about it. We must keep the criticisms in perspective. It is unfair to demoralise the staff, from top to bottom, because of mistakes that are made. Mistakes are inevitable in an organisation of this size and too many people never give praise for the marvellous work the Post Office is doing.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not attack Post Office workers; I attacked the regular cases in which the Post Office cannot deliver a letter from Stratford to the House of Commons within a couple of days. If my constituents cannot get their letters of complaint here and think I am holding them up, I am not going to take the blame. I tell them it is the fault of the Post Office. If Sir William Ryland cannot put it right, I am entitled to complain.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: One way in which Sir William Ryland could put it right is to get more staff in the London area, but that is very difficult, as the Post Office

1383
has discovered to its cost. When my hon. Friend compares the situation today with the situation which existed many years ago, he forgets the changes in society that have affected all our lives in that time. In this day and age it is virtually impossible to get staff who will, on a postal worker's pay, go to work at four or five o'clock in the morning in central London, where there is less and less housing available. It is more and more difficult to get staff to perform work that formerly they were willing to do for a much lower rate of pay. This is one of the causes of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton was in favour of a public inquiry. He said that the Post Office had dealt secretly with some of the issues he had mentioned and that there should be more public debate. I challenge him on that. One has only to read through the evidence that has been provided by the public on previous surveys and through the reports of the Post Office Users' National Council, where a detailed inquiry has been carried out into the different options open to the Post Office, such as cutting services and using marketing services to bring more business in, to see that quite enough information has been gained for well-informed public debate, and certainly for an adequate debate in this Chamber.
I do not think that yet another inquiry into the Post Office would serve any good to anyone. That does not mean that I disagree with the hon. Member about the need for clear guidelines and secure targets. I agree with him very much about that. That is one of the vital matters to which the Government must pay attention. The Post Office must have clearly-laid-down, positively-agreed targets on the basis of corporate plans and strategies which have been settled with the Post Office, and those agreed targets must be maintained. The Government must stop using the Post Office as an instrument of economic policy on pay, prices and everything else in the short term; they must give it a long-term aim, so that it knows exactly where it is going and can plan ahead in the way it has been unable to do hitherto—a situation which has lead to this debate.
1384
The Government must, as they are vigorously trying to do, contain inflation. The effect of inflation on a business of this size is staggering. Its effect on pay, prices and supplies for an organisation with this many staff and with this size of business is tremendous. The Post Office, in co-operation with the unions—I am sure that in the present difficult conditions the unions would be only too pleased to comply—must achieve greater productivity. This probably applies to the postal service more than anything else. There have been enormous increases in productivity on the telecommunications and Giro services, but great advances are yet to be made on an increase in productivity on the postal service.
It may be that the Post Office, with the Government, will in the near future have to take some hard decisions about the future quality of services. We should not delude ourselves that there are any easy solutions. A public inquiry would not be an easy solution. Recommendations would have to be made and acted upon. When we study the situation we find that it is necessary either to put up the price or to cut the services. Obviously the public will never be in favour of doing either of those things. The Government and the Post Office will have to take some hard decisions, and in doing so I think they deserve our support in the House.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I followed with great interest the speeches made by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). It is clear that both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have a deep knowledge of Post Office affairs. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Thornaby that we, as politicians, should not try to interfere too often with the nationalised industries and that we should not be continually pulling up young plants to look at the roots to see how they are getting on. I made much the same point myself in a debate on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill, in which I said, in effect, that the least interference with the nationalised industries by politicians the better.
But I think that the hon. Member for Thornaby must take on board the fact

1385
that we are here considering a special case. The Post Office has recently received a subsidy of £300 million. A few weeks ago the deficit forecast for the current year was approximately £70 million, but now we are told that it is likely to be £300 million. The charge for first class mail will be increased from 3½p a mere 13 months ago—what a long time ago that now seems—to 82p in the near future. That is an increase of 150 per cent. It is the general feeling of outrage against the extent of the rise in charges which necessitates this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton declared an interest, in that he worked for five years in the Post Office. I worked for approximately the same number of weeks in the Post Office, many years ago, as a temporary Christmas postman. I do not know whether that qualifies me to declare an interest, but knowing how prickly the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is on this subject I must make haste to declare that interest.
During the time that I was working in the Post Office I was greatly impressed by the cheerfulness and good humour of the postmen who arrived at work at 5 or 5.15 in the morning. At that hour I was usually in a filthy temper. I was also impressed by the kindness that they showed on their rounds. For example, one old lady complained that neither her three grandchildren nor she were likely to receive any Christmas cards. In a remarkably short time all the Christmas cards that were for one reason or another non-deliverable were smartly readdressed and shoved through her letter box. I do not suppose that she has ever had such a bumper Christmas.
I am sure that every hon. Member has experienced through the years great demonstrations of kindness and helpfulness by members of the Post Office, on whom we are dependent. I make it clear that my complaint is not against the postmen themselves—of course, in such a large organisation there are inevitably some laggards—but against the system.
We can judge an industrialised country today by the efficiency of its mailing and telecommunications services. I am afraid that by such yardsticks we are rapidly
1386
falling behind other Western industrialised nations.
Yesterday morning I received a letter from the local branch of the National Union of Railwaymen in my constituency. It was sent to me first class so as to get to me in good time for the debate. I have the permission of the local branch of the NUR to quote the letter. It reads:
"My members and I, wish to make a very strong protest against the very high increase in charges as proposed by Mr. Ryland Post Office chairman. If those proposed are allowed to go through they will put a very heavy financial burden on everybody. It appears so chronic that when the Post Office was run by Whitehall it was the cheapest, and most efficient service in the world. Since it has been run by a board it has gradually deteriorated. We would suggest that an inquiry should be set up to look at the running of the industry, because as a monopoly it should not show such tremendous losses. Second-class post should be done away with. We never used to have it. Everyone believes it is ridiculous to hold mail 'back'. We suggest one class to be delivered anywhere in Great Britain the next day, as we did in the said 'horse and cart' era. We hope that you will be able to do something in this serious matter."
Hon. Members may think it surprising to find the work force of one nationalised industry writing in this vein about another nationalised industry. That letter was of course unsolicited, but the fact that the NUR wrote in that way demonstrates how many people are angry at the extraordinary rise in Post Office charges, and at the bland assumption that all that Post Office management needs to do is to put up charges and the organisation will be back in the black. Surely a further rise in charges will mean that the Post Office will do even less business. Therefore, an increase in prices is not the answer. The Post Office must seek means to cut costs and to reduce expenses. If the present Chairman of the Post Office does not go down in history for any other reason, he will certainly go down as an experiment of Ryland's Law of diminishing returns. That law may be briefly stated as follows:
"If one subsidises prices, one rapidly reaches the position where it is impossible to put them back up to an economic level. The rise needed is too great for the customer to accept."
It is clear that at present the Post Office is suffering inexorably from that law of diminishing returns. People are now

1387
carrying out their own local deliveries of cheques, bills, and so forth. I know a charity close to my constituency where supporters are recruited to deliver letters three or four times a year. About 30 per cent, of all deliveries go by hand. This year that organisation will attempt to make two-thirds of its deliveries by hand because it feels that it cannot afford the postal costs involved.
It is right in this debate to search for some tentative solutions. I agree that there are no easy solutions to the problem, but we should search for some answers. I found the speech of the Minister of State somewhat disappointing in that respect. He did an admirable job of stonewalling, but he hit nothing to the boundary in the form of solutions. I wish to put forward, with a good deal of humility, one or two thoughts on the subject.
The service which we receive in this country is archaic in the sense that it is so very good in the way in which the postman delivers mail, parcels and other literature right up to one's doorstep. I am sure that most hon. Members have had experience of delivering election literature, and they will appreciate the time-consuming difficulties experienced by postmen. We know what it means having to negotiate long garden paths, or having to climb to the top floor of blocks of flats, or of having to cope with letter boxes which appear to have been invented for dwarfs with double-jointed fingers. Unfortunately, this is one luxury that we must now try to do without.
Has not the time come when we have to move to a system of garden-gate boxes, stationed along the pavement, and with suites of individual mail boxes next door to each other on the ground floor of blocks of flats, as is done in the United States and Canada? If such a system were adopted in this country, it would substantially reduce the time spent on delivery services, and this would lead to a reduction in the manpower needed in the Post Office. We must also consider the suggestion of doing away with separate first and second class mails and of returning to a single mail system. The only justification for having two mail deliveries is to have one ultra fast system and one normal system, but at the present time we have one normal system and one
1388
slow system. The result is that everyone, whenever he possibly can, makes use of the slow service in order to save money, and when he wishes something to be known and passed on with speed he makes a telephone call. This clearly is leading to a substantial downturn in the overall volume of mail. There was a reduction of 26·6 per cent. as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said in first-class mail between the last quarter and the comparable quarter in the past year. That is a staggering reduction.
I suggest that the answer is to revert to one-class mail and to pitch the price of that at a level at which it is competitive with the average cost of a standard telephone call made during working hours. In this way mail could be attracted back to the Post Office again.
However, the most important point made in the letter from the NUR was the suggestion that an inquiry should be set up to examine the running of the industry because as a monopoly it should not show such a tremendous loss. Many hon. Members have different ideas about what a nationalised industry that is a monopoly should do. There are those—and I am one—who think that overall a nationalised industry should strive for a profit out of which it can fund its future capital investment. Others, particularly Labour Members, believe that monopolies in the nationalised industries should run at a loss because of the industries' social service objective. Then there was the Morrisonian principle, namely, the compromise of trying to break even taking one year with another. It is in this that the whole problem of the nationalised industries is encapsulated. They have always suffered from a confusion of social and commercial objectives, and this is a good argument against any further nationalisation.
However, the essential point in relation to the Post Office must be to discover where the monopoly can be broken and where forces of competition can be allowed to enter. I strongly support the suggestion for an inquiry, in which postal users will have a voice, to discuss how the services can be run more efficiently, whether the Post Office is not now too big and too centralised and should be split into two separate, independent divisions—one for telecommunications and

1389
the other for mail services—and to examine ways in which private companies can be introduced to compete with the Post Office and thus sharpen the Post Office's commercial edge.
Without such an objective look, as sure as night follows day the Post Office's finances will go from bad to worse and in no time we shall be faced with either a 10p first-class mail stamp or a 15p first-class mail stamp. That stamp from the very first will be a collector's item because no one will be able to afford to use it. The Post Office has to come to its senses, and an independent inquiry is the first step in that process.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: It is surely to be expected that any debate in this Chamber on the Post Office will be riddled with highly subjective tales about the inefficiency of the Post Office. None of us has been disappointed tonight because there have been many such tales.
However, we have had an extremely thoughtful and well-informed debate with particularly interesting contributions from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth). It has also been a controversial debate and has highlighted the problems that confront the Post Office at present.
It would be quite wrong if we were to mislead the public into thinking tat these are new problems. They are problems that the Post Office has faced for a considerable period and they have been intensified by inflation and other factors.
The Minister highlighted the central problem facing the Post Office and other public sector industries, which is how they and we reconcile the need for them to act commercially and at the same time recognise their community importance and their social service function. That is the nub of the problem facing the Post Office and other public sector industries, and it is one which we cannot dodge. We must attempt to devise policies which reconcile those two demands which are imposed on the public sector.
We need to put the problems of the Post Office in perspective. As Members of Parliament, we all rely heavily on the Post Office in our day-to-day work and recognise its general efficiency. I pay
1390
personal tribute to the service which the Post Office provides for hon. Members. In recognising that general efficiency, we must make it clear that the Post Office is not perfect. How many of us are perfect? How many of us operate at 100 per cent. efficiency every day of the week?
My hon. Friend the member for Thornaby spelt out the scale of operations of the Post Office. He told us how many thousands of individuals worked for it and the extraordinary range of services and individual transactions which it carried out on a day-to-day basis. If the Post Office worked at 99 per cent. efficiency an enormous number of individual errors and complaints would still come to us in our constituency work.
Therefore, we must put the efficiency of the Post Office in perspective. Of course there are serious things wrong with the operations of the Post Office, but we would be wrong to criticise the Post Office in completely black terms. The Post Office is tackling its problems and, although it may not be doing so quickly enough or in a way we endorse, that is another matter from condemning the Post Office as a completely inefficient organisation.
In recognising the problems of the industry we must take fully into account the genuine hardship which is imposed upon many people whom we represent by the substantial price increases. It would be wrong for us to ignore those problems in putting the general problems of the Post Office into perspective.
I should like to comment in more detail on the operation of sub-post offices. Those of us who represent rural constituencies will appreciate the tremendous importance of sub-post offices, of which there are more than 20,000 throughout the United Kingdom. In my constituency I have been concerned at the threatened closure of two sub-post offices. One threatened closure has not come about because the sub-postmistress has decided to withdraw her resignation and to continue to run the office. That is somewhat surprising, because she enjoys the lavish income of under £12 a week for operating the sub-post office and performing a valuable service for the community. The other sub-post office seems destined to be closed very shortly.

1391
I enjoy a good relationship with the post office in my area and I have been in correspondence with the head postmaster on this matter. He has written to me as follows:
"The conclusions reached after this consideration is that the Bridge End Post Office is not economical and the people who transact business there have regularly to go into towns where adequate postal facilities are already existing, so the inconvenience caused will be minimal. Taking into account all the circumstances the office is no longer warranted. I know the disappointment that this decision will mean to you and all other people affected, we would all like postal facilities near to our residences or places of business but unfortunately the Post Office cannot afford to be so generous."
I would not expect it to be that generous, but I would remind the Post Office that this particular sub-post office caters for the needs of more than 100 pensioners and a number of industrial concerns in that locality. To close that office would mean that a number of these people, in a district not blessed with good transport, would have a very steep, hilly area to climb in order to reach the post office in the town centre.
This story could be duplicated in many other areas in the country, and I ask the Minister to resassure me and my constituents, and other hon. Members who rely on sub-post offices in their area, to say that, whatever the problems of the Post Office, they will not be dealt with by some Beeching-type axeing operation of sub-post offices and other facilities which are important to constituents living in rural areas. I believe that that would be a fundamental error. Not only do the sub-post offices provide an important service. They are more than just post offices. They are manned by men and women who have a very close and intimate knowledge of the problems and circumstances of the people using their offices. They act as advice centres and as very important links with the outside world and with relatives and friends who can act in these times of stress and difficulty.
Therefore I urge the Minister, whatever the Post Office may be planning to do, to make a very strong appeal that these sub-post offices shall not be axed in the way that I fear may be likely in view of the Post Office's desire to act commercially. I think this would be a quite disastrous policy.
1392
Until recently, when I was given the sub-postmaster's handbook, which spells out the very Victorian terms of employment under which these people are condemned to work—one could hardly imagine that they enjoy the work—I did not know much about the conditions of sub-postmasters. Their conditions have to be looked at, and their incomes. They have suffered recently by a reduction in their income through the withdrawal of national savings stamps, and also by the fact that football pool companies are employing private agents, so that the number of postal orders purchased has been reduced considerably. There needs to be some interim relief for sub-postmasters to compensate them for the loss in their incomes which has come about as a consequence of this.
I also believe that the Post Office must look to the matter of pensions for these people, for at the present moment there are no pensions whatsoever. They receive retirement gratuities which are given only after five years' service to people who have put in 18 hours' personal service a week. After 29 years and seven months this gratuity amounts to just over £1,000. Frankly, I do not think this is good enough. There is no security of tenure for these individuals after a period of service. This is quite wrong in a period when security of tenure has been given to many other people. There is no compensation for loss of appointment. Also, I believe that they are treated very shabbily when it comes to providing substitutes during the holiday period.
I again urge the Minister to say something on this in winding up the debate, because I believe that it is not only important to constituents who live in rural areas but a matter of deep concern to sub-postmasters themselves.
I conclude by asking the Minister to make a very clear statement tonight. If he is not in a position to answer in detail, I hope he will ensure that the Post Office gives urgent reassurance to sub-postmasters and to individuals living in these areas that the services will remain in being.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I agree that this has been a debate which has seen many constructive contributions from back benchers

1393
on both sides of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), and Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), and the hon. Members for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), and for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) have contributed in a most thoughtful and constructive way to our debate. I thought that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton was especially valuable, and his first-hand, long experience of the Post Office has been of benefit to both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) rightly drew attention to the considerable plight of the publishers of magazines and books, facing, as they are, recurrent increases in postal charges, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the plight of pensioners who are probably the hardest hit amongst the whole community by increased postal charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham referred to their predicament, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) before he left the Chamber apparently disgusted by the contributions of his hon. Friends.
I refer briefly to the speech by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). I give him the assurance that he sought that the Conservative Party would see it as one of the principal benefits of the independent inquiry that we have in mind that it would be able to make his recommendations enabling a greater degree of experimentation and pilot study work to take place in various parts of the country. What is more, we see no reason why an independent inquiry should not reappraise the statutory monopoly position of the Post Office. Similar questions are at the moment being asked by a Select Committee of this House.
However, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton said. If the statutory monopoly is to be breached in any way, a condition of that must be that the new competitors of the Post Office should be able to compete on a fair and all-fours basis with the Post Office.
I turn to the opening speech by the Minister of State. I can appreciate that he found himself in considerable difficulty. It must be embarrassing if not
1394
awkward to have to come to this House to say that the deficit of the nationalised industry for which he has responsibility has rocketed from £50 million to £300 million in just six months. However, I found it strange that at no point did the hon. Gentleman feel it appropriate to express any regret or apology for what had happened, and I endorse fully what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said about there being a real sense of anger and outrage to see the Post Office coming back for a new increase in prices and with a sixfold increase in its forecast deficit only six months after making its original forecast. It appeared from the Minister's speech that he was oblivious of that. His view seemed to be that the Post Office had got its sums wrong and that this was a regrettable internal difficulty in the Post Office. But we are talking about what is by any stretch of the imagination a colossal sum. We see an increased deficit of a quarter of a billion pounds. Surely some expression of regret is due from the Minister to the users and the taxpayers who will have to foot this considerable bill.
The Minister's attitude to what by any standards is a financial debacle seemed to be to take refuge in the statement:
"I do not run the Post Office.'
However, I do not believe that it is reasonable or proper for a Minister to shuffle off responsibility for what has happened. The Government accepted what subsequently appeared to be the very inadequate inflation assumption which the Post Office used when it forecast in January of this year that the deficit for 1975–76 would be only £50 million. The Government failed to exercise any degree of influence and constraint over the Post Office pay settlement in April which was a major factor responsible for knocking the finances of the Post Office sideways.
If the Minister claims that he has no legal power to intervene, I refer him to Section 11 of the previous Labour Government's Post Office Act of 1969. In subsection (2), clear powers are given to Ministers to make directives to the Post Office
"If it appears to the Minister that there is a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising any of its powers…"

1395
Clearly there have been major defects here, and it was open to Ministers to intervene and to give directives if they chose. They failed to do so, and that means that there is certainly a major degree of responsibility for the £300 million deficit with which we are being faced on Ministers as well as on Post Office management.
The Minister, in his opening remarks, and the Government in their amendment, have sought to suggest that the responsibility for the present financial position of the Post Office lies with the previous Conservative Government and the statutory price restraint policy of that Government. While I would acknowledge that a statutory price restraint policy was pursued—it would be difficult to say otherwise—I would make clear the financial perspective. The total amount of the Post Office's deficit, as achieved and as is forecast, covering the first two financial years of the present Government, comes to £620 million, and that is nearly five times greater than the total amount paid to the Post Office for price restraint compensation during the period of the last Conservative Government. If, therefore, the Minister hopes to attribute a measure of blame and responsibility to the last Conservative Government, all I would say is that the present Government's degree of responsibility is already nearly five times greater.
I turn to the very important point raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, regarding the Post Office pension fund. This is a very disturbing position. We believe that the actuarial deficit of the Post Office pension fund must be in excess of £800 million. It is notable that of the £290 million deficit now being forecast by the Post Office for 1975–76, £90 million is attributable to the deficit on that fund.
I agree with hon. Members on both sides that it is not now particularly productive to try to suggest where the blame for that lies. Certainly the previous Conservative Government found themselves in difficulty over this, as have the present Labour Government. But I must set the record straight in view of the comments of the Minister of State at the Treasury during the Second Reading of the Statu-
1396
tory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill—because during that debate the Minister seemed to be under the impression that it was the previous Conservative Government who were responsible for this deficit on the Post Office pension fund.
As has been admirably drawn out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, the deficit is principally attributable to pre-1969 liabilities of those who were working in the Post Office service. Their liabilities were discharged and funded in the Labour Government's Post Office Act of 1969. They were funded solely and wholely in 2½ per cent. Consols, which have clearly in no way matched the level of inflation which has subsequently taken place. But this 2½ per cent. Consols funding arrangement was made during the last Labour Government. That is down in black and white in Section 47 of the Post Office Act, 1969. I am afraid that the root source of all this is in that piece of legislation.
I turn to the important question to be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary in winding up the debate. Clearly there is a fundamental choice to be made. Is it right that this enormous deficit on the fund should continue to be discharged by making massive drawings on the revenue account of the Post Office, thereby charging it to the Post Office users and consumers, or should it be met by the general body of taxpayers? That is an important question. I believe that both sides would agree that it is quite wrong for there not to be made in the Post Office accounts a clear distinction between the operational losses of the Post Office and, on the other hand, the quite extraordinary provision being made against the Post Office revenue account for the pension fund.
I turn to what we would regard as being the major cause of the deficit which has arisen. It has been said by the Minister of State that it is due to inflation, which would appear to be a thoroughly nebulous explanation, and that nobody in particular is responsible.
The basic reason for this deficit is undoubtedly the fact that the Post Office failed in the first place accurately to calculate the loss of revenue which it would suffer as a result of the last round of price increases. In addition to that, and

1397
very much more seriously, there has been the settlement made to the Post Office workers in the spring of this year. That represented an average increase to postal workers of 24·2 per cent. to which was coupled a cost-of-living payment totalling 1 per cent. for every 1 per cent. increase in the retail price index above 11 per cent.
What has happened is that the horrifying rate of inflation and the acceleration in that rate has dragged up the Post Office deficit with it to its present astronomic heights. The point we make about the settlement and the way it has affected the Post Office's finances is that this seems to be an extraordinary situation whereby the Post Office entered into a pay settlement solely on its own authority knowing that it had not, under any circumstances, the revenue to pay for that settlement. This is a clear case of a nationalised industry going deeper into deficit without any degree of direct control and involvement by a Minister even though internal funds were not there to meet the settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater has developed forcibly our case for setting up an independent inquiry into Post Office affairs. It is notable that while this has not had the support of the Government Front Bench, it has received support elsewhere. It was supported by the hon. Member for Colne Valley on behalf of the Liberal Party, and Mr. Tom Jackson said on the radio this morning that he was in no way averse to a public inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex has said that his local branch of the NUR has also said that an independent inquiry would be justified.
We say that there is a widespread feeling that the Post Office is not the best judge as to how it should proceed. This is a most important nationalised industry currently consuming an enormous amount of the nation's resources. It is a nationalised industry on which every family and firm is to a greater or lesser extent dependent. We believe that there is a profoundly strong case for establishing an independent inquiry to look at the long-term future of the Post Office and the options open to it.
There has inevitably been a measure of criticism directed against the Post Office by a number of hon. Members. It must be said that the breakdown of
1398
financial control in the Post Office has to a large extent been a reflection and a product of the calamitous national economic policy pursued by the Government. The crippling impact on the Post Offices's finances of this year's pay settlement for Post Office workers is in turn a direct reflection of the crippling impact on the economy as a whole of the disastrous delusion of the social contract.
We have seen a six-fold increase in the Post Office's deficit in six months. That, too, is a direct reflection of the way in which public sector expenditure as a whole has increased and is still increasing when it ought to be diminishing. We have seen, too, the way in which the Government have failed to ensure that there is any proper financial discipline in this segment of the public sector. This is a reflection of the general relaxation and abandonment of financial discipline over the whole public sector.
The sad and painful message that comes from this debate is that just as every taxpayer and consumer will have to shoulder the horrifying increase in the Post Office's deficit this year, so, too, every taxpayer and consumer will have to shoulder the heavier and more painful burdens created by the Government's lamentable economic irresponsibility.
9.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): During the past three hours the House has witnessed two separate and very different debates. From the Government back benches we have heard constructive speeches reflecting the very serious concern throughout the country about the disturbing and escalating Post Office deficit which led to last week's proposals by the Post Office for steep increases in charges. We have also heard from my hon. Friends speeches which reflect the problems. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) rightly drew attention to problems in his constituency—problems to which I assure him I shall certainly draw the attention of the Post Office.
From the Conservative Opposition we received, right from the tabling of their spurious motion through to the winding up stage, yet another dosage of the shoddy opportunism which is the only contribution that that once great party

1399
can now make to political debates. I should exclude the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) from those remarks, because he did point out to us that if he loses his seat he will have to go back to work for the Post Office. His majority is 808.
No one can fail to be disturbed at the sharply rocketing cost of posting a letter or making a telephone call. Hon. Members have rightly called for all possible further economies that can reduce costs. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out in his opening speech, such economies are being urgently sought, in addition to those already made.
We have asked the chairman to try to find further reductions in costs for 1975–76. He has offered a saving of £24 million over and above savings of about £33 million agreed before the beginning of the financial year. We have asked him to look around further, in conjunction with the unions, to see whether this figure can be increased to £50 million.
Even the smallest sums are important when we look for economies. I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) who drew attention to the newspaper story last week about the possibility of electronically operated venetian blinds being installed in the projected new Post Office headquarters. When I read the article I was highly disturbed at this idea. I have caused inquiries to be made and I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we shall request from the Post Office an assurance that such expenditure, as projected will bring about a commensurate saving if it is to go ahead, otherwise we shall ask the Post Office to reconsider this project.
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend later. I appreciate his point.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way later, if I have time.
We must not deceive ourselves into believing that economies of more than tens of millions of pounds can be achieved in the Post Office's total turn-
1400
over of £2,000 million without a further serious deterioration in services. Hon. Members have pointed with justification to the deterioration that has already taken place in recent years, even though lately some small improvement has been achieved.
However, let us not fool ourselves. The superb postal service that this country has been used to was based on a plentiful supply of cheap labour. Those days are over—over for good. Opposition Members may pine for the days when the butler brought in the Sunday evening delivery on a silver tray prior to discovering the body in the library.
Mr. Tom King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: Not at this stage. I shall be coming to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Those days are over—over for good, not just in Britain, but throughout the world. All over the world postal services are operating with heavy deficits. Even in the United States a Government subsidy is needed for the maintenance of a postal service which is inferior to ours. What is more, even with the deterioration in service that we all sadly acknowledge, the British postal service still offers better value for money than do many other services. We can all make our own criticisms, born of bitter experience, but in cost, in frequency of collection and in regularity of delivery, our postal service still compares favourably with most others. While we rightly complain, we should recognise that fact. Especially in door-to-door delivery, on a universal basis, our service is pretty well unique, contrary to the contention of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton).
It is significant that last week the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—themselves outstanding examples of efficient management and profitability—ran articles which aimed to attack the Post Office but in the end had to acknowledge its comparative merits.
The Daily Express, speaking about the American system, said:
"There it is common practice in rural areas for people to pick up their own mail from the Post Office."
It is a fact that in the United States 18 per cent. of all letter mail is collected

1401
by the addressees from private boxes in Post Offices.
The Daily Mail—another highly efficient organisation—said:
"Britain … is the only country in the world where the postal service has a statutory obligation to put a letter through your letter box rather than leaving it in a box at the farm gate or in a personal box at the Post Office itself."
Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: Certainly not.
"Their proposed new postal rate for a letter, first-class, goes up 1p to 8½p … but that is for a 2 oz. letter against a 0·7 oz. letter which is the limit for the price on the Continent where the postal service is subsidised. …
"Against our proposed 8½p here are comparative costs: West Germany 9·7p; Belgium 8·1p; Denmark 7·5p; Eire 7p; France 9p; Italy 7·2p; Luxembourg 5·2p; Netherlands 9·4p."
Our service is worse than we would like, but in an inflationary world no labour-intensive service can be run on the cheap with maximum efficiency. Yet we have been expecting the Post Office to provide a flawless service at rock-bottom prices when no less than 72 per cent. of the total labour effort is concerned with the letter post. For every 4p. spent, 3p goes on wages and salaries.
The Tory Opposition know this very well. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) acknowledged the problem last month, when he posed the question:
"Can the existing level of postal services be justified if they require continual subsidisation from one year to another?"—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 122.]
That was the hon. Gentleman who has just wound up for the Opposition on this censure motion. That is why their motion and speeches tonight have been calculated exercises in opportunistic hypocrisy.
After all, just what are they complaining about? Are they complaining that the Post Office is in deficit at all? Even they could not have that much cheek—not with their record. When they came into office five years ago the Post Office was running a surplus of more than £20 million. When they left office last year the Post Office was facing a deficit of nearly £307 million. It was their own policies which were directly to blame. The price restraint policies imposed under their counter-inflation legislation cost the
1402
Post Office over £500 million, much of it as subsidy by a nationalised industry to private industry, for, taking the letter post alone, about 80 per cent. is sent or received by business users.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, in the only honest speech from the Opposition, pointed out that the main consumers of postal services are businesses and better-off individuals. Therefore, the Opposition are the last people with the right to complain that the Post Office is in deficit.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing asked for our regret at that deficit. It is the Opposition's regret. It is the regret of the legacy that they left us this massive deficit. It is the burden placed upon the Post Office by their counter-inflation legislation. It is they who should express regret.
Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister acknowledge that the figures he gave were fraudulent, as they attributed deficits for the financial year 1974-75, when the Labour Government were in office, to the last Conservative Government? The £300 million deficit for the period 1974-75 is wholly the responsibility of the Labour Government.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should go back to his logarithms if he expects us to take that seriously. Are the Oppositon horrified and surprised by the size of the deficit, which is so much greater than the Chancellor forecast in his Budget Statement? They lack even that excuse.
Five weeks ago in the debate on the Second Reading of the Statutory Corporations Bill, they were hawking around a prospective deficit figure for the Post Office of £300 million and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, while unable to confirm the precise figure, made no bones about the situation when he spoke of
"A substantial deterioration, mainly due to higher inflation."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 48.]
They even knew the reasons for that deterioration, due to higher inflation—most notably the UPW pay settlement, to which reference was made tonight. That settlement, as the House will recall, was criticised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment as outside the social contract guidelines. But

1403
that settlement drew no comment at all from the Tory Opposition. How could it, since the inflationary element built into this settlement was the threshold which was the special inflationary legacy that the Tory Government handed over to us?
Were the Tories shocked that the Post Office had decided that it had no alternative but to pass on this greatly increased deficit in higher prices to the consumer?
How could they be shocked? They knew that it was the policy of this Government, announced as soon as we took office, to phase out subsidies and go for realistic pricing, even though this year we are still subsidising the Post Office to the tune of £70 million. But this is their policy as well. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing himself, speaking in this House on 9th June, described complete price freedom for the Post Office as a welcome policy.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in the same debate, seemed concerned that the Government have still given themselves powers to subsidise in the future. So the Opposition, least of all, can complain if their deficit, exacerbated by their policies, is turned into the price increases that they advocate. So what conceivable basis can they have for the demand in this motion for an inquiry into the Post Office as a prelude to increased Government intervention?
It cannot be because they have always been advocates of Government intervention in nationalised industries, and, in particular, the Post Office. Indeed, when the Post Office Bill, setting up the present corporation, was going through
this House, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), as their spokesman, was perfectly revolted by the idea. He denounced any scope for political meddling. He was repelled by the thought of backstairs influence and interference by the Minister.
Maybe, then, while opposed to Government interference in general, the Opposition believe in it in this particular case because of the unique incapacity of the management of the Post Office. That would be the strangest situation of all. Because of course the man who runs the Post Office is the man they put in charge. They put him in charge on a very controversial occasion that this House remembers. And in case anyone forgets, let me remind the House of how Mr. Christopher Chataway, as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, described the situation when he sacked Lord Hall, and appointed Sir William Ryland in his place. The decision was made, Mr. Chataway said, in the interests of the efficient management of the Post Office. They appointed Sir William to secure efficient management, and Sir William is still in charge. Has Sir William changed, or have they? No, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members are right to express misgivings about the serious state of the Post Office's finances—but not the Opposition. This is not a genuine censure motion. This is the criminal revisting the scene of his crime. He has been caught red handed. We ask the House to vote this motion down.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 260.

Division No. 283.]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Booth, Albert

Cohen, Stanley

Allaun, Frank

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Coleman, Donald

Anderson, Donald

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Concannon, J. D.

Archer, Peter

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Conlan, Bernard

Armstrong, Ernest

Bradley, Tom

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Ashley, Jack

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Corbett, Robin

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Atkinson, Norman

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Crawshaw, Richard

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Cronin, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Campbell, Ian

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Bates, Alf

Canavan, Dennis

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Bean, R. E.

Cant, R. B.

Davidson, Arthur

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Carmichael, Neil

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cartwright, John

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bishop, E. S.

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Clemitson, Ivor

Deakins, Eric

Boardman, H.

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Delargy, Hugh

Kaufman, Gerald

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Kelley, Richard

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Dempsey, James

Kerr, Russell

Rooker, J. W.

Doig, Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Roper, John

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Kinnock, Neil

Rose, Paul B.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lambie, David

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Dunn, James A.

Lamborn, Harry

Rowlands, Ted

Dunnett, Jack

Lamond, James

Ryman, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Leadbitter, Ted

Sandelson, Neville

Eadie, Alex

Lee, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Edelman, Maurice

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Selby, Harry

Edge, Geoff

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lipton, Marcus

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

English, Michael

Litterick, Tom

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Ennals, David

Loyden, Eddie

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Luard, Evan

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Evans, John (Newton)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Faulds, Andrew

McCartney, Hugh

Sillars, James

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McElhone, Frank

Silverman, Julius

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Skinner, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Small, William

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mackintosh, John P.

Snape, Peter

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

Ford, Ben

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Spriggs, Leslie

Forrester, John

Madden, Max

Stallard, A. W.

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Magee, Bryan

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

Mahon, Simon

Stoddart, David

Freeson, Reginald

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Stott, Roger

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marks, Kenneth

Strang, Gavin

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Marquand, David

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

George, Bruce

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Gilbert, Dr John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Swain, Thomas

Ginsburg, David

Maynard, Miss Joan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Golding, John

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Gould, Bryan

Mendelson, John

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Gourlay, Harry

Mikardo Ian

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Graham, Ted

Millan, Bruce

Tierney, Sydney

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Tinn, James

Grant, John (Islington C)

Miller, Mrs. Millie (Ilford N)

Tomlinson, John

Grocott, Bruce

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Tomney, Frank

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Molloy, William

Torney, Tom

Hardy, Peter

Moonman, Eric

Tuck, Raphael

Harper, Joseph

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Urwin, T. W.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Moyle, Roland

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

Hatton, Frank

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Newens, Stanley

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Noble, Mike

Ward, Michael

Heffer, Eric S.

Ogden, Eric

Watkins, David

Hooley, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

Watkinson, John

Horam, John

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Weetch, Ken

Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H)

Orbach, Maurice

Weitzman, David

Huckfield, Les

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

Ovenden, John

White, James (Pollok)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Owen, Dr David

Whitehead, Phillip

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Padley, Walter

Whitlock, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Palmer, Arthur

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Hunter, Adam

Park, George

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Parker, John

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Parry, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Pavitt, Laurie

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Janner, Greville

Pendry, Tom

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Perry, Ernest

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Phipps, Dr Colin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Woodall, Alec

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

price, William (Rugby)

Woof, Robert

John, Brynmor

Radice, Giles

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Young, David (Bolton E)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Mr. J. D. Dormant and

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Mr. John Ellis.

Judd, Frank

NOES

Adley, Robert

Awdry, Daniel

Bell, Ronald

Aitken, Jonathan

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Bennett, Dr Frederic (Torbay)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Baker, Kenneth

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Arnold, Tom

Banks, Robert

Benyon, W.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Beith, A. J.

Berry, Hon Anthony

1406

1407

Biffen, John

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Percival, Ian

Biggs-Davison, John

Havers, Sir Michael

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Blaker, Peter

Hawkins, Paul

Pink, R. Bonner

Body, Richard

Hayhoe, Barney

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Prior, Rt Hon James

Bottomley, Peter

Heseltine, Michael

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Higgins, Terence L.

Raison, Timothy

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Holland, Philip

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brittan, Leon

Hordern, peter

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Brotherton, Michael

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Reid, George

Bryan, Sir Paul

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Buck, Antony

Hunt, John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Budgen, Nick

Hurd, Douglas

Ridsdale, Julian

Bulmer, Esmond

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rifkind, Malcolm

Burden, F. A.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Carlisle, Mark

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Channon, Paul

Jopling, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Churchill, W. S.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Royle, Sir Anthony

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kershaw, Anthony

Salnsbury, Tim

Clegg, Walter

Kimball, Marcus

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Cockcroft, John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Scott, Nicholas

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Cope, John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Cordle, John H.

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Corrie, John

Knox, David

Shepherd, Colin

Costain, A. P.

Lamont, Norman

Shersby, Michael

Crawford, Douglas

Lane, David

Silvester, Fred

Critchley, Julian

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sims, Roger

Crouch, David

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Crowder, F. P.

Lawrence, Ivan

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lawson, Nigel

Speed, Keith

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Spence, John

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Ian

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Drayson, Burnaby

Loveridge, John

Sproat, Iain

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Luce, Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Durant, Tony

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Stanley, John

Dykes, Hugh

MacCormick, Iain

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Macfarlane, Neil

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

MacGregor, John

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Elliott, Sir William

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Emery, Peter

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stokes, John

Eyre, Reginald

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Madel, David

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Farr, John

Marten, Neil

Tebbit, Norman

Fell, Anthony

Mates, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mather, Carol

Thomas, Dafytdd (Merioneth)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Maude, Angus

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Thompson, George

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mawby, Ray

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Townsend, Cyril D.

Fox, Marcus

Mayhew, Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tugendhat, Christopher

Freud, Clement

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Fry, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Viggers, Peter

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Moate, Roger

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Monro, Hector

Wakeham, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Montgomery, Fergus

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Wall, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Walters, Dennis

Goodhart, Philip

Morgan, Geraint

Warren, Kenneth

Goodhew, Victor

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Watt, Hamish

Goodlad, Alastair

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Weatherill, Bernard

Gorst, John

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wells, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wiggin, Jerry

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mudd, David

Wigley, Dafydd

Gray, Hamish

Nelson, Anthony

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Grieve, Percy

Neubert, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Newton, Tony

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Grist, Ian

Nott, John

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Hall, Sir John

Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally

Younger, Hon George

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Page, John (Harrow West)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hampson, Dr Keith

Pardoe, John

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Hannam, John

Penhaligon, David

Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the
1410
nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office; and endorses deficits of the nationalised industries and the Government objective of phasing out the restoring them to profitability.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Coal Industry Bill and the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Clause 2

    NEW RIGHT OF BOARD TO WITHDRAW SUPPORT TO ENABLE COAL TO BE WORKED.
    Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
    "(4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, where damage to any land or to anything lawfully on that land whenever constructed or brought thereon arises from the exercise of the right to withdraw support conferred on the Board by this section, the Board shall either—

    (a) pay proper compensation for the damage including such consequential loss as would be recoverable in an action of nuisance in respect of that withdrawal, or

    (b) with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to the payment of compensation for the damage, make good the damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him;

    and, where appropriate, the Board shall pay such proper compensation in accordance with paragraph (a) above for damage not made good in accordance with paragraph (b) above."
    10.16 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    In dealing with this amendment on subsidence compensation, I would point out that the Government have never envisaged the Bill—we discussed this matter in Committee—as the right vehicle for making the fundamental change in the compensation provisions for subsidence damage which the Lords Amendment represents. The Bill merely sought to re-enact the compensation provisions from the Coal Act 1938. Together with the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 they provide the basis
    1412
    of a compensation régime which by and large has worked very well over a number of years.
    The National Coal Board goes well beyond its statutory liabilities to avoid individual hardship. In the case of the Selby development it has reached broad agreement with the National Farmers' Union about compensation for crop loss and other matters. The régime appeared to give little cause for complaint until the introduction of the Bill. There was little pressure for change. Nevertheless, an interdepartmental committee of officials was studying the situation to see what improvements, if any, were necessary.
    It has been said during the passage of the Bill that it was only right that the National Coal Board should have to pay improved compensation for damage and losses arising from subsidence as quid pro quo for the sweeping new powers to withdraw support which it was said the Bill would provide. Although Clause 2 may give the appearance of providing sweeping new powers, the reality is quite the reverse. The new powers are simply a clarification of the existing rights, to put the matter beyond doubt that the board has the right to withdraw lateral as well as vertical support. It has hitherto always believed that it had such rights and has conducted its operations in that belief. It is generally impossible to withdraw vertical support without at the same time withdrawing lateral support. As regards the generality of surface owners in coal areas, the new powers will make no difference. Existing obligations, whether they are based on formal written agreements, verbal understandings or gentlemen's agreements, will be honoured by the board.
    Thus, the call for compensation to be improved to balance the granting of new powers has no base in reality. The existing régime provides a stable basis for operations and transactions, both underground and on the surface. In this way people know where they stand. The National Coal Board is able to plan operations on the basis of compensation costs which can be estimated. On the surface land values can be based on a compensation probability in line with well-known procedures.

    1413
    To make the fundamental change envisaged in the Lords Amendment would upset these procedures. The board would have to reassess its activities in the light of the increased compensation costs which it might incur. Some faces might have to be closed and the development of others modified. On the surface land values would be affected and, until the newer situation had been operating for some time, there would probably be a great deal of uncertainty.
    Another bad feature of the amendment is that it drastically changes the balance between the National Coal Board and the surface owners without any safeguard. Under the present arrangement the surface owner generally has an incentive to take such steps as he can to minimise the damage which might arise from subsidence. Under the amended provision, that incentive virtually would disappear. Consequently, there could be a good deal more damage and loss from subsidence than there is at present. Apart from throwing a big burden of additional costs on the board, that would also lead to a waste of national resources which at present are being safeguarded by the prudence which the existing régime encourages land owners to adopt.
    As has been said many times in the passage of the Bill, subsidence compensation is a complex matter which does not lend itself to the simple change which the Lords Amendment would make without running the risk of undesirable and unwelcome side effects and disruptions of the kind I have outlined.
    For all these reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment. In so doing, I repeat the assurances which have been given on a number of occasions—namely, that the working party of officials will complete their review of mining subsidence as quickly as possible and that an early opportunity will be sought to introduce amending legislation if that turns out to be desirable.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The Minister in his closing remarks gave clear reasons for the amendment. Despite what was contained in the holy writ which he read to us, he well knows that the compensation provisions at present are inadequate and unsatisfactory and are recognised as being so by bodies such as the National
    1414
    Farmers' Union and also by the National Coal Board.
    The promise with which the Minister ended his remarks—namely, that the interdepartmental committee will report speedily—is a promise which I have heard him utter on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill. He well knows that the inquiry has been sitting since 1971. We learned from a recent parliamentary answer that the committee has had only six meetings in four years. Therefore, there is not much hope of obtaining a speedy answer from that body. The Bill when enacted will join a number of Acts of Parliament governing the operations of the coal mining industry. Many of them affect the right to extract coal and, as a result, the rights of surface owners. There is an undisputed common law right in respect of the supporting services. That has been established over the years and would remain in an unencumbered state provided that other legislation did not interfere.
    As the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, the two principal Acts of Parliament which have interfered are the 1938 Coal Act and the 1957 Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act.
    The Bill we are considering introduces a number of opportunities for the National Coal Board to win coal in new areas. It was because all hon. Members wanted an exploitation of our coal energy resources that Conservative Members did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Indeed, I welcomed the Bill as a major step forward in winning these new resources. I am quite prepared, as an enthusiast for the industry, to repeat that promise. However, the fact is that the Bill introduces significant changes which will materially affect the surface owners in those areas where coal is to be won.
    The power which the Under-Secretary brushed aside as not being a sweeping power nevertheless creates, according to the wording of the Bill, a new right. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill it states that:
    "Clause 2 and Schedule 1: give the National Coal Board a general right to withdraw support from land so far as is required for the working of any coal instead of the rights available under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Coal Act 1938. The new right allows

    1415
    support to be withdrawn from any land including land adjacent to that directly above coal being worked."
    It is a new and important right and I do not quarrel with it. All I am saying is that if the right is to be exercised, those people who may be adversely affected by that extraction taking place should also be protected.
    This is not a party matter in any sense. During our discussions in Committee hon. Members of all parties were perfectly happy to point out the importance of this compensation provision. The fact of the matter remains that as at present drafted the compensation provisions in Clause 2 are inadequate, not only because they are now challenged by many respectable bodies but because Clause 2 provides this new right in areas where coal has not been worked before—perhaps, for instance, in my constituency of the New Forest. Those areas where mining is not a known art but where it is a practice to which people are not accustomed could see serious problems created for surface owners who have buildings which could be subject to damage from subsidence.
    The Lords Amendment at least provides, in the interim to which the Minister has referred—namely between a Bill to tidy up these compensation matters and the report of the inter-departmental inquiry—some safeguard which can immediately be incorporated into this legislation without in any way delaying either the Selby project or any other important aspect which this legislation covers.
    Only today I received, as other hon. Members received, a note from the National Farmers' Union which does not give quite the same rosy view of the past practices of the National Coal Board as the Under-Secretary would have us take. It states clearly that the National Farmers' Union regards this Lords Amendment as being of considerable, indeed, paramount importance.
    10.30 p.m.
    The NFU note states:
    "It is of great importance to the agricultural industry that this amendment be retained in the Bill if it is to become law. Though this matter is affecting all sections of the community in areas affected by coal mining subsidence, it has an obvious and particular importance for agriculture. The payment of compensation in respect of coal mining subsidence damage is at present regulated by the Coal-Mining (Sub-
    1416
    sidence) Act 1957. This provides for compensation in respect of immediate damage, but does not include a legal right to the recovery of compensation in respect of consequential loss and it is therefore an inadequate basis of compensation."
    That is perfectly true. It covers immediate damage, but if as a result of that damage something else goes wrong—if, for example a water supply is affected—that is not covered by Clause 2. It is that consequential loss for which the surface owner has no redress. It is with that loss that we are concerned.
    The NFU note ends with these words:
    "The provisions of the 1957 Act, without this augmentation, do not bear any relation to the practical realities of the agriculture which they were originally designed to protect. The National Farmers' Union has long contended that there should be statutory provisions for the payment of compensation by the National Coal Board to farmers in respect of consequential loss resulting from subsidence caused by coal mining activity."
    Having listened to that, the House will recognise that while the happy relationship which the farming industry has with the coalmining industry, and, which the Under-Secretary of State described in such honied terms, may exist in most cases, that is not the general rule and the industry is concerned about this problem.
    Not only is that industry concerned, but the Under-Secretary of State will be aware of what has been taking place on the M6 motorway. The busiest motorway service station in Britain is now closed because of mining subsidence. The Under-Secretary of State is, I know, familiar with this problem, but it was brought out clearly in the reports in The Times and other newspapers at the end of May. On 30th May there was a report in The Times, under the heading "Mining closes M6 service area", as follows:
    "The northbound side of one of Britain's busiest motorway service areas, on the M6 at Corley, near Coventry, is closing down its fuel and restaurant facilities next Monday because of the danger of mining subsidence.
    It was opened only three years ago with the final link-up of the Midland motorway network and yesterday a spokesman of Trust Houses Forte, the operators, said: 'It is one of the busiest in the country but the interests of public safety must come first.'
    The Coal Board said that operations would continue for at least a year and a probable maximum of two years. An official said: 'We have advised that the fuel tanks at the service area should be drained for safety. We have taken steps to minimise subsidence by reducing the length of the coalface and the thickness

    1417
    taken out. The area being worked is known as the North Pillar and the face is already under the service area, but not yet under the built-up part. It will not be until November, although it is liable to come under the influence of possible subsidence in July or August.
    The Trust Houses Forte official in London said: 'The decision to close down the northbound section is endorsed by the Coal Board and the Department of the Environment. We think it is the proper action to take in the interests of public safety'."
    There may well be a claim for consequential loss because the service area is allocated by the Department of the Environment through the Minister for Transport to various catering companies. The fact that about 80 people have lost their jobs at this service station and that no doubt a certain amount of trade is also lost may well lead to a case in the courts. Given the provisions of Clause 2, there is no way of arriving at a reasonable figure for a consequential loss.
    Mr. John Ryman: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to a consequential loss not being provided for specifically by the Bill. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that a farmer who suffers a consequential loss has a common law remedy for negligence quite apart from the provisions of the Bill? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that there is no legal remedy for consequential losses by farmers.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me with the attention that I would have wished. I was referring to Clause 2 of the Bill, which is the law we are about to make in Parliament, and there it does not refer in any way to consequential loss.
    Mr. Ryman: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. It is the common law remedy which exists, quite apart from Clause 2.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: As I pointed out at the beginning, the common law right of everybody in this country is the right to support under his land, but it is eroded by various Acts of Parliament. Of course there is a common law right to recover damages for loss, but are we suggesting that if somebody suffers serious damage to a water course on his farm, he has to fight this beak and claw through the courts without being able to have any
    1418
    recourse to a law which states that the Coal Board shall have a responsibility in the matter? I do not think that that is fair at all.
    I do not see any reason why we should be passing legislation which gives any authority the right to come on to anybody's land or under his land and cause him damage which may lead to severe financial loss, and then expect him to have to fight it through the courts.
    If the hon. Gentleman had followed our proceedings he would know that in Clause 1, on the pneumoconiotics provisions, it was precisely this point about the old common law right—on which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out so many times, he had to fight for people who were suffering from pneumoconiosis—which led to this provision in the Bill in Clause 1 to make it an obligation that these people should be looked after, I suggest that that obligation should be just as important in Clause 2.
    There are not only those two cases. I could cite others. The British Ceramics Manufacturers' Federation made it clear that its members too, are extremely concerned. They have every reason to be, because, as I said at the beginning, in this matter the Government have been dragging their feet very badly. In a Written Question recently to the Secretary of State for Energy about this interdepartmental committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, I asked the Secretary of State for Energy
    "what are the terms of reference of the interdepartmental committee appointed in 1971 to consider the questions of compensation for damage and injury resulting from mining or other industrial operations; how many times the committee has met; when it is due to report; whether its conclusions will be made public; and whether it is his intention to incorporate the recommendations in the current Coal Industry Bill."
    The answer was:
    "The terms of reference of the Working Group on Mining Subsidence Compensation are: 'To study the problem of damage resulting from coal mining subsidence and to make recommendations with regard to two separate issues, viz.: (a) the National Coal Bord's statutory liability to pay compensation; (b) the Board's attitude towards the cost of structural precautions to lessen the risk of damage to new buildings'."
    The answer went on:
    "The Working Group has had six full meetings and in addition various consultations have taken place by correspondence and between

    1419
    individual members. It has been asked to report as quickly as possible after it has had time to give proper consideration to the new evidence which has been coming to light … As is usual in the case of committees of officials, the report will not be made public but the Government will make a full statement on the subject when it has had time to consider the report. If new legislation is then called for, an early opportunity will be sought for it.—[Official Report, 23rd May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 699.]
    This committee—and I am not blaming only the hon. Gentleman's Department here, because two Governments are involved; indeed, three separate Parliaments—has been sitting for four years and has had six meetings. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Coal Board has given evidence to this body? I am not at all sure that it has. In fact, I am not at all sure that there is any sign of this committee reporting at all. I do not think it right to have legislation introduced into the House at this time which calls for the introduction of new rights to withdraw support without either having that body's recommendations available to the Government or a satisfactory compensation Bill being made available.
    It boils down to whether the Minister is satisfied to rely entirely upon the Coal Act of 1938. I was always told that the wicked old days of the private coal owner before the days of nationalisation were so evil as to be hardly mentioned in polite company, yet the Minister's argument relies upon that Act of Parliament. That and the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act of 1957 are two pillars of the law which obviously have been overtaken by events.
    In Committee, when the Minister referred to both the inquiry and the Acts, he said:
    "Consequential losses and blight are not included as such in the provisions of either the Coal Act 1938 or the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, which are the existing basis for subsidence compensation."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11th March 1975, c. 99.]
    From the hon. Gentleman's own lips, it is clear that these two real concerns have to be covered some time soon.
    This amendment from the other place at least builds in a safeguard. At least it includes the phrase "consequential damage". It also gives people an opportunity of treating for nuisance. It provides for individuals a safeguard, even if
    1420
    it is not the full safeguard which the Opposition wanted.
    I am afraid that the story of this compensation discussion is one of slovenly and half-hearted attitudes by many people who should have the individual citizen's interests very much more at heart than they appear to have. The Opposition do not believe that this Bill should be passed into law without giving those individual citizens some real rights written in legislation upon which they can rely should the industry spread into their areas. I remind every hon. Member that his own constituents may be affected. Are hon. Members satisfied that the gentlemen's agreement to which the Minister referred and the old Acts of pre-war days are sufficient safeguards? The Opposition do not think that they are. For that reason, we shall vote against the Government's motion.
    Mr. Maurice Edelman: It pains me to have to prefer the arguments of the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) to those put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I say that because I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend. In all other respects, his judgments are cogent and compelling. I regret that his adjudication of the merits of this case seems to me to fall below the merits of the argument itself.
    This is not a matter which should be treated in a partisan spirit. It is one of great concern not only to farmers but even more so to industrialists and to those whom they employ. It is a matter which concerns workers as well as manufacturers, and that is why I wish to outline briefly the history of this discussion and also to discuss the Lords Amendment.
    I am no stranger to this problem. For many years, I have been in contact with successive chairmen of the National Coal Board and with Ministers who have been dealing with questions of subsidence.
    I am surprised that no mention has been made of the Robens Agreement. This matter of subsidence first became one of great concern in Coventry when the NCB published its intention to start mining in certain areas, especially in my own constituency in the north, where the proposal was a matter of great concern to manufacturers.
    Mr. Eadie: The Robens Agreement does apply.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Edelman: I am sure that the Robens Agreement does apply. That has been underlined by Sir Derek Ezra. I am not so much dealing with its current application. I would like to deal with the concern felt by manufacturers in my constituency over this problem. What we are discussing is not something new. It has been going on for a long time and has been dealt with pragmatically in the past.
    The Robens Agreement of 1968, in which I played some small part, was brought about because there was great concern among manufacturers of precision machinery in Coventry, people who work to tolerances of thousandths of a millimetre, that because of undermining of their factories they might be disadvantaged. They feared that they might not only incur direct physical loss but suffer consequential damage, with the result that their workers would be put out of work and they might suffer closure such as that on the M6, but which in the case of a manufacturing company is obviously of much deeper concern.
    A gentlemen's agreement was mentioned. That is all very well. One of the reasons why those directly concerned want the situation to be changed statutorily is that there is no absolute guarantee that either Ministers or Chairmen of the National Coal Board will always be gentlemen. It is, therefore, necessary to embody in the law the broad preoccupation which is felt by those who are worried about what might happen.
    My hon. Friend touched on the existence of an inter-departmental working party considering the general question of compensation. As the hon. Member for New Forest has said, this working party has been in existence since 1971. In the whole of those five years it has met six times. I wonder whether it should be called the non-working party. A working party dealing with such a vital problem which is so dilatory in reaching a conclusion is surely not to be relied on by us tonight. That is why so many of those concerned feel that this Bill is the occasion for building in specific measures to make sure that at
    1422
    least in this area there shall be proper provision for compensation.
    It has been said that the better is the enemy of the good. I have no doubt that if we had a general decision about compensation which would be of wide and general application we would all be much better off and manufacturers and workers could sleep more easily at night, knowing that if anything happened they would be compensated. For the time being we are dealing with the coal industry and the problem of undermining manufacturing industry in places like Coventry.
    I quote from a letter I received from the Director of the Coventry and District Engineering Employers' Association. Although he speaks in the name of the employers I can say from my own contacts with the trade unionists in Coventry that what he says expresses the feelings not only of the employers but of the workers in industry there, too. He says:
    "I know that you are very well aware of our long term concern in relation to compensation for consequential loss arising from the withdrawal of lateral support. I am sure that you will readily appreciate that in a city like Coventry which depends for its prosperity so heavily upon industry that compensation merely for the immediate physical loss caused by subsidence can fall far short of providing anything like an adequate remedy for the firm concerned."
    Then he comes to the nub of the matter, namely Clause 2:
    "For example, even a very modest degree of subsidence could cause a factory assembly line to be taken out of commission for many months with very serious consequences to the firm in terms of lost production not to mention the effect on employment in the factory concerned. Here I would also feel that you would readily see the essential equity of industry's case."
    He then goes on to give the roll-call of the firms mentioned. I think it will be agreed that in giving this roll-call of industrial firms concerned he and I, in quoting him, are referring not just to parochial matters in my constituency, but to the concern of the whole nation. He continues:
    "At present some of the major companies who are vitally concerned include Courtaulds, Dunlop, Alfred Herbert and Morris Engines to name but a few, but really the same problems apply to many other employers to the north of the city."
    In mentioning those firms, which are directly over the potential line of mining

    1423
    underneath the city of Coventry, I think we are dealing with the legitimate claims of those engaged in industry in the city to see that in this important Bill these dangers are recognised. Perhaps I might in parentheses say that I find this a curious hybrid Bill when I see pneumoconiosis, which we all deplore and are happy to see provided for, somehow related to the more controversial question of mining under various cities and farmland.
    Be that as it may, the fact is that we have a proposal here which has dangers which has been recognised by my hon. Friend's predecessors. Indeed, they have been recognised by previous chairmen of the National Coal Board. I pay tribute both to Lord Robens and to Sir Derek Ezra who are fully apprised of the dangers. They have promised that the so-called gentlemen's agreement will be maintained.
    But, even accepting that, we have now reached a point where the Lords, in their wisdom, have produced a sensible recommendation which I believe should have the non-partisan support of the House. What they are asking is reasonable. I hope that it will be supported.
    I should like to give one final illustration. When the first intentions were announced, that the National Coal Board might mine under the City of Coventry, naturally the most acute anxiety was the fear that mining would be carried out underneath the cathedral. That was a legitimate anxiety which immediately produced a proper emotional reaction.
    Mr. Alec Woodall Mr. Alec Woodall (Hemsworth) indicated dissent.
    Mr. Edelman: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is shaking his head because he disputes the facts. The facts are as I have stated them. There was anxiety about the possibility of mining being carried out underneath Coventry cathedral. But the National Coal Board has quite properly given undertakings and guarantees that that will not happen.
    It is equally proper, when we are concerned with factories employing tens of thousands of people—factories on which the national interest depends—that certain inhibitions should be placed on those who might threaten those factories.
    1424
    The hon. Member for New Forest properly underlined the fact that probably all hon. Members, vitally concerned about the future of the coal industry, are anxious not to weaken the power of the National Coal Board but to extend its workings wherever possible in the interests of the nation and the workers in that industry. We would applaud any intention by my hon. Friend, which he has exercised in many other directions, to try to provide facilities for the expansion of the industry and the welfare of those who work in it.
    But we are dealing with something which is countervailing. We want to ensure that some inhibition is imposed on the NCB so that it will not exercise its power arbitrarily. There is a danger that great public authorities which are statutorily exempt from the burden of having to pay compensation in the event will abuse that power. Therefore, unless my hon. Friend can produce compelling reasons for the case that he has made today, I shall, with regret, but in accordance with the general principle that I have maintained for many years, go into the Lobby against him in support of my argument.
    Mr. John Farr: I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman).
    I shall refer to the agricultural arguments advanced by the Minister. He said that if this Lords Amendment were accepted, additional compensation costs would be incurred by the NCB. I object to that. If the NCB does not meet the costs, the farmers must do so. The considerable costs involved were not covered by the clause as it went to the House of Lords. It ill behoves the Minister to say to farmers, "Never mind the extra costs which farming must meet, but the Government will not allow the NCB to compensate you" when the Government recently produced a very good White Paper calling for additional food expansion from British farms.
    The Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 is 18 years old and is now hopelessly out of date. It was geared to the immediate post-war period. It provides for compensation for immediate damage. However, it does not give the farmer or

    1425
    agriculturist a legal right to compensation for loss.
    Mr. Albert Roberts: Why is that 1957 Act hopelessly out of date? I was a member of the Committee on that Bill. My constituency suffers tremendously from mining subsidence, but farmers have never had a better deal.
    Mr. Farr: I think that it will be better if the hon. Gentleman waits until I tell the House why that Act is hopelessly out of date and thoroughly inadequate.
    There are several reasons why this clause was inadequate before it was amended in the Lords. Reference was made to land drainage. If subsidence affects the delicate pattern of drainage in a field, it may take years before the full effect of the damage is apparent. It may take several years of declining output from that field before the farmer realises that the land drainage is affected and that the land is becoming water sodden. Under the Bill as it left this House, farmers would be entitled to claim only for the repair to the pattern of land drainage when the damage was discovered but would have no right to claim for any consequential loss which may have arisen over a number of years, causing a steady reduction in the output of crops in those fields.
    The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) asked me a question. He is now speaking to someone else.
    I give another example why agriculture is hard hit. The 1957 Act is out of date in relation to farm structures. I have in mind certain farm buildings which have been placed out of use by land subsidence. They may be out of use, depending on the extent of the damage, for some time. I am not thinking only of farm buildings. I am thinking of expensive milking parlours, for instance, which may be put out of action for a period. The farmer may get compensation towards putting them back into working order, but there is no compensation for the consequential loss of income as a result of the disorganisation caused by the damage which has affected his particular enterprise.
    11.0 p.m.
    There are many other examples. Concrete yards can be put out of action. Fuel tanks can be rendered dangerous.
    1426
    Another example which can hit farming very hard—I know that this has hit a farmer in Yorkshire very hard indeed—is when a farm road, in the middle of a busy harvest season, suddenly becomes unuscable because of subsidence. The farmer can manage, but long and expensive detours are made necessary for machinery and equipment and delays in the harvest occur as a result of the upheaval of the road.
    My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned the example of a burst water main and the damage that that can cause. Many farmers today are on metered water supplies. From a slightly fractured water main, water can seep away for a number of years before the loss is pinpointed. The damaged pipe will be repaired at no expense to the farmer, but the loss while water has been seeping away into the ground for some years is not the subject of any compensation.
    This Lords Amendment is particularly valuable for one special reason. The boundaries of existing coalfields are always being extended. New coalfields are always being sought and prepared for production. Some of our best agricultural land lies over our most prolific coalfields. It is for that reason alone that I urge the Government to bring this piece of legislation up to date and to provide a fair deal for agriculture.
    Mr. William Wilson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) in opposing the Government's motion to disagree with this Lords Amendment.
    Those of us who represent Coventry know full well that although we have no coal mines within our constituencies, the mines situated outside our boundaries operate to a considerable extent beneath the City of Coventry. It is not only the Engineering Employers' Association that has called upon us to support the Lords Amendment. The Coventry City Council has also called upon us to back the Lords in their amendment.
    Even without the Coventry City Council urging me to take this action, it still seems to me that the Bill, as it was proposed by the Government, is unfair in the matter of compensation.

    1427
    All too many years ago, when I was a law student, I learned that whoever owned the surface owned right the way up to heaven and right the way down to hell. That was before the days of the National Coal Board. But the common law of England has always existed. Unless there can be some good reason for breaking the principle of the common law of England, I stand by them.
    It is because of that principle and because tonight I have heard no reason, and in looking through reports of earlier debates I have seen no reason, why the common law of England in respect of the right of support and of damages and entitlement to damages should be broken, that I must take this stand. This is not a matter for gentlemen's agreements, for nods and winks, and for the old boys' act. Simply, it is that a person who owns the surface is entitled to the right of support and, if that support is broken, to compensation for the consequential damage.
    That is a substantial principle of English law. It should not be broken, even by the National Coal Board. For that reason, unless the Minister says something quite extraordinary, I shall vote, with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West in support of the amendment.
    Sir Paul Bryan: In Committee, the Opposition won the argument for consequential compensation. There was no answer to it. But inevitably we lost the Division. Our colleagues in the Lords won both the argument, in an admirable debate, and the Division and we congratulate them on their victory.
    Until I heard the Under-Secretary of State tonight, I had had new hope for, by chance, reconsideration of this amendment coincides with the arrival of a new Minister at the Department of Energy. Looking at the problems with a fresh mind and for the first time, he could not fail to be struck by the lack of justice of the Bill as it stood before the Lords Amendment. So far we have been up against two Ministers, both with a mining background, who have lived with a ludicrous situation so long that they do not appreciate its absurdity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) in Committee noted that if the fatal pipe at Flixborough chemical
    1428
    works had been broken by subsidence, and not by some other cause, the company would have had a legal claim against the coal board for repair of the pipe but none for the huge plant which the fracture was responsible for destroying.
    The board is not as other men. It enjoys a unique immunity. Who would have believed that a public institution like the National Coal Board would have had the arrogance to presume that that situation is acceptable to other people? The only answer to the unanswerable case we advanced in Committee was, "Do not worry. The NCB are good about this sort of thing". In another place, the Minister bluntly stated that granting rights of compensation for consequential damage would lead to unnecessary litigation for damages. As litigation would not arise if the sufferer were satisfied, the noble Lord clearly was not so sure that NCB paternalism would survive a legal case.
    May I kill once and for all the idea that the NCB has such an admirable reputation for fair dealing that the citizen need not worry about having no legal rights in his dealings with the board? That is not the impression of my constituents. They had no knowledge of coal mining, and only the discovery of the Selby coalfield has brought them into contact with the NCB. In this community the NCB had to build up a reputation from scratch and so far it has not done well. Take the case of the main line railway. Suddenly, without notice or consultation with the local community, it was announced in the course of the public inquiry that the stretch of the main line railway between York and Selby was to be removed and the people of Selby were to lose the great asset—which they had enjoyed for the past 100 years—of being on the main London to Scotland line.
    It is perhaps fanciful to imagine that the community would receive compensation for this very real loss which is a direct consequence of the NCB's mining operations. From the way in which the people of Selby have been treated, they do not get the impression that the board minds very much about this severe consequential damage. The story of the motorway service area at Corley only confirms their worst fears. Who else but the board would expect to have the right

    1429
    to take action, with impunity, the consequences of which have been to close down a lawful trading concern, deprive 80 people of their jobs and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds? If private individuals or firms took such action, they would have to face the consequences in the courts. The board has the privilege of legal immunity. The deplorable aspect of this is that Ministers see nothing wrong in this outrageous anomaly.
    The amendment gives people affected by the board's mining operations the same rights as they would have if their property were interferred with by anybody else. Surely this is a perfectly natural and legitimate aspiration?
    During the Committee stage, farmers were fobbed off with assurances on compensation that appeared to have no legal validity. I am glad to see that the National Farmers' Union has reacted with commendable vigour to claim for its members their legal rights. In the memorandum we have all received from the union, it states:
    "It is of great importance to the agricultural industry that this amendment be retained in the Bill if it is to become law."
    The statement goes on to repeat the arguments we put in Committee highlighting the damage that subsidence could do in such areas as the Selby coalfield. It says:
    "The 1957 Act is inadequate for a number of reasons. In the first place, even slight subsidence may result in disturbances to drainage patterns. This can be extremely important especially in areas with a high water table, where the land may be liable to flooding and high agricultural production has been achieved only by consistent improvement and steadily developed under-drainage. Disturbance to this drainage may well result in a degradation of the land and a continuing loss of crops over a number of years. This continuing loss of crops may he the only available evidence for some considerable time that damage to the drainage system has resulted from coal-mining activity. Lack of liability on the part of the National Coal Board for continuing loss may therefore mean that by the time any deficiency in the restoration of the drainage system can be shown the farmer is unable to claim compensation in respect of the damage and loss suffered."
    Mr. Albert Roberts: Surely all this was brought out in the public inquiry? The NFU and other people gave evidence at the inquiry. Would it not be as well to wait until the report comes out?
    Sir Paul Bryan: I gave evidence at the inquiry, as did my hon. Friend the Mem-
    1430
    ber for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). May I remind hon. Members of what was said at the inquiry by Mr. Griffiths, the QC for the National Coal Board? He said:
    "You have heard evidence that the Board works fairly and generously within what the law provides and I recognise that consequential losses are not all covered by the law of compensation. I would remind you that, as you yourself observed early in the inquiry, that compensation is a matter to be considered by Parliament and is perhaps best considered by them."
    We are doing tonight as Mr. Griffiths has recommended.
    11.15 p.m.
    Both in this House and another place the Government have been humiliated in their efforts to defend the proposition that in a free country the citizen need have no legal redress for consequential damage against a public board. That is the long and the short of it. As this proposition was so clearly indefensible, the only resort has been feebly to fall back on to a committee—and what a committee! It has sat on average just over once a year for the last four or five years. Clearly, even now we are not being given any idea of when it is to complete its findings. We are told "as soon as possible" and "with all speed" but that is totally unsatisfactory in view of the seriousness of the case.
    I am reminded of the situation with the capital transfer tax and agriculture. The tax has been imposed and subsequently we have been promised a committee to decide how much damage it will do to agriculture, the tax already having, been established.
    The discovery of this lift. seam between Barnsley and York gives the Government and the National Coal Board the chance to create the perfect coalfield community. This huge deposit of coal has fallen into the board's hands free of all charge and compensation. The conditions are so favourable that it will be mined at a fraction of average costs. All the circumstances are there for the Government to show the utmost generosity to the local community, the only people in the United Kingdom who will suffer rather than benefit from the coal development.
    The chance of winning this good will is rejected at every opportunity. The old

    1431
    wooden toll bridge at Selby, built in 1792 and crying out for replacement for the last 50 years, is to be the gateway to the largest and most modern coalfield in Europe. The Barlby-Riccall by-pass is to be cancelled because of the coming into operation of the coalfield. No assurance is given that schools and other essential services will be expanded to meet the incoming population. Now in the House of Commons the Minister is about to tell my constituents that they have no legal redress if, as a consequence of the National Coal Board's activities, their homes, businesses or farms are damaged. That is no way to win the confidence of Yorkshire people.
    Mr. R. B. Cant: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I say immediately, so as not to provoke the wrath of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, that I regard the National Coal Board as a dynamic nationalised industry, and one with tremendous social conscience. It is my favourite nationalised industry. When at home I look out of the front window of the room in which I think my profoundest thoughts I can see what is alleged and reputed to be the largest coal refuse tip in Western Europe—nearly 16 million tons of refuse which the NCB very generously is helping the city council of Stoke-on-Trent to transform into a magnificent land reclamation scheme. If I am slightly critical of the NCB I trust that my deeper motivations will be clearly understood.
    I think that all the arguments on this amendment have been deployed, but I have a few comments to make about my own constituency. I do so, first, because after the war Stoke-on-Trent—I hope that I can have the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) on this matter—took the initiative as regards the negotiations that led to the 1957 Act. That was a step forward. That step was taken after 20 years' experience of the previous Act. Some of us are now hoping that the Coal Industry Act 1975 will take the matter a further step forward along the lines that have been indicated.
    It is important to think not only in terms of the broad acres of agriculture or of such sophisticated modern cities
    1432
    as Coventry but of some of the older urban areas such as Stoke-on-Trent. Stoke represents an area of approximately 33 square miles and has a population of a quarter of a million. By statistical coincidence, not only is 85 per cent. of the city undermined but this relatively small area, a unique industrial concentration, produces some 80 per cent. of the total ceramic output of Great Britain. In the surrounding area it is the main employer of labour.
    In those circumstances, subsidence is a serious problem, despite the guffaws of some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I know that in Stoke-on-Trent we are fortunate in terms of vertical movement because we have the soft cushion of etruria marl which, in conjuncture with coal, made the great pottery industry possible. It is a tremendous industry producing the exquisite wares of Wedgwood, Spode, Doulton—I must put them all on the record because if I do not my omissions will be noted.
    It should be pointed out that 60 per cent. of the industry's products is exported to some of the richest countries in the world.
    We are faced with a complete change in the techniques of manufacturing in the pottery industry. The old pottery companies which were, to some extent, a source of jokes and to a larger extent a source of pollution, are using the new types of kiln. Although the kilns do not work to the precision of thousandths of an inch, which is common in the motor industry, they require accuracy in terms of the great quantities of pottery that pass through them at a certain speed and at a constant temperature. That means that if anything goes wrong with the foundations there is not only a serious and immediate loss but a consequential loss of a high order. I think that the Minister should face that situation. It may be that we come along with far too many constituency points and problems, but we are talking about the employment of thousands of people and not only the profits of a number of firms
    If the Minister will say that he will concede this point of compensation along the lines that have been suggested, I think that we can leave the rest to the working party. I am not as cynical as many of my hon. Friends, and I believe that it

    1433
    is doing a grand job. It is doing it a little more slowly than some of us would wish because it wants to do it thoroughly.
    Mr. Edelman: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would do a grander job if it did it a little more quickly?
    Mr. Cant: I am no expert on these matters, but my hon. Friend may well have a point.
    I conclude by saying that if the Minister will make a concession on the point I have mentioned, we can leave the rest of the wider issues to the working party.
    Nobody has yet mentioned the cost of implementing the principle. I only wish to emphasise that this expenditure, although not perhaps important in a global sense involving the overall National Coal Board's requirements or indeed the Government's public sector borrowing requirement, will be enormously important to individual firms.
    Mr. Peter Emery: I wish to be brief at this hour and will make only three major points.
    When I found myself in the Minister's shoes with responsibility for these matters, I gave instructions that the committee in question should report as soon as humanly possible. I think that there is reason to be critical of the fact that we have not had that report earlier.
    Secondly, I accept that the National Coal Board has more or less, without exception, been both thorough and generous in the compensation which it has given. I wish to pay tribute to the board on that score. But it is a nonsense to say that the board has never made a mistake in these matters. Therefore, it is nonsense to resist the Lords Amendment. The Government cannot say that there has been no element of consequential damage in respect of the National Coal Board. If that is the case, why do not the Government establish this procedure in legislation?
    It is easy to be generous when the economic situation allows adequate money to be allocated to these matters, but at times of major economic stringency the board has tended to interpret the letter of the agreement and not to be quite as generous as it has been in the past. Since we are now facing a
    1434
    situation of economic difficulty and since the Minister appears to take the view that the "ad hockery" and the Robens Agreement has worked in most cases satisfactorily, I believe that at this moment of time it may well be necessary to include in the legislation an amendment such as that which has come from the other place. This is not a matter of mere party polemics, but it involves sensible compensation to ordinary people. I could refer to three cases on which appeals have gone to the Minister. Those cases involved ordinary householders who had no rights in respect of consequential damage and who were unable to meet the costs incurred by subsidence to their homes.
    With those few remarks I urge the Minister to be sensible, to have second thoughts and to take the initiative and tell his advisers that the arguments of the House were strong enough to persuade him that at this late stage it made sense to accept their Lordships' amendment.
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. George Park: I should like to add briefly my note of concern to those already voiced by my colleagues from Coventry. I appreciate that there is a clash of national interest in the matter before the House tonight. We need coal in ever-greater quantities. However, it is equally true that the activities of the companies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) are also in the national interest.
    I first became involved in this subject as the city councillor for the area referred co by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West. I had to initiate long-drawn-out negotiations at regular intervals with the National Coal Board to make good in some cases the severe damage done to hundreds of houses in the area—damage which included cracks in walls, doors that would not open and windows that were stuck.
    Although my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said that the board was dynamic, I first had to prise it loose from the idea that council tenants in Coventry had not got beyond the idea that their living rooms were white-washed. That is where we started and at regular intervals this had to be examined again and again.

    1435
    The workings have now extended under my constituency and I believe that there is little point in re-activating and re-tooling companies such as Alfred Herbert if, as a result of other work by the National Coal Board, they are prevented from getting on with the work that is so urgently needed by machine tool firms.
    It should also be noted that because of the delicacy of work done at one company the city council reconsidered a road scheme because it was felt that the vibrations from vehicles would upset the work being done. Here we have a situation in which the local authority has already had extensive trouble over these matters and in which industry is constantly concerned about it. If the Minister cannot reconsider this situation, I shall have no option but to join my colleauges in the Lobby to vote against the motion.
    Mr. Adam Butler: To try to improve compensation for the victims of mining subsidence has been a crusade of mine for some few years, even before I became a Member of Parliament—indeed, when I first became associated with my constituency. Therefore, I am happy to join in the debate, if briefly.
    I must draw the Minister's attention to four basic points. I know him to be an understanding and sympathetic man and I hope that, having listened to all the points made by others, some of which I shall underline, and the points which I shall make, he will reconsider this matter.
    My first point relates to the line up of those who are in favour of the Lords Amendment. Apart from the majority of their Lordships—and I was interested to hear what Labour Members have said—the Coventry City Council as well as the old Urban District Councils Association spoke strongly on this matter. I am sure that the Minister has read the 13 points which were passed as a resolution at the 1969 conference. I believe that the other local authority associations also feel strongly about this. The line-up is powerful.
    My second point concerns the discretion of the National Coal Board. We all know from experience over the past few years that the board has chosen to interpret the 1957 Act generously. The local liaison committees between the area offices and the district councils have
    1436
    worked well. In the past two or three years I have received very few, if any, complaints about wrong treatment as a result of mining subsidence damage. But that can change with the economic situation. Already the board is rightly determined to undermine where it has not undermined before. For the same reasons of economy it could well revert to the strict provisions of the 1957 Act. That is why we must legislate now to improve the compensation provisions.
    Thirdly, I should like to think that the review will be produced as quickly as possible. I am sure that that promise was given as sincerely as the Minister could give it. But in December 1972 my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), then a Minister in the Trade and Industry Department, said in reply to a Question that I put to him:
    "The review is nearing completion and I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future."—[Official Report, 4th December 1972; Vol 847, c. 289.]
    That was two and a half years ago. The Minister wrote me a nice letter after the Second Reading debate, because he was not able to deal with the subject then, and he made the same promises. I fear that the review will be an old man before it reaches the cradle. We cannot wait for it.
    My fourth point is the one that should command the most attention. We should pay fair compensation to those who work in the industry and to those who suffer as a result of it. Wage rates and payments for miners are not a matter for us to debate tonight. But there is a close relation between the provisions for pneumoconiosis compensation and mining subsidence compensation, because both are for sufferers. We all welcome Clause 1, because of what it does for the victims of pneumoconiosis. They have suffered, and are suffering, as a result of coal mining. On this amendment from their Lordships, we are debating other sufferers from mining. Those people are not receiving the full compensation that they deserve. They need compensation for consequential damage. That is why I support my hon. Friends and look for support for the amendment from the Labour benches.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have not for a long time heard

    1437
    such falsity as I have heard tonight from the Opposition. Before the nationalisation of the mines there was no talk of compensation for subsidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or pneumoconiosis."] The Conservatives never appreciated what happened to the miners as a result of pneumoconiosis, but that is another point.
    We are told that compensation must he paid by the coalmining industry, whatever its profits are, to people affected by subsidence. I have no objections to the principle. Let us bear in mind that people are reluctant to build new factories and plants in coalmining areas. No matter how one prepares underground with packing material, about one-third to two-thirds lowers and affects the surface. The slightest deviation can cause a tremendous upset to sophisticated, automated machinery on the surface. Therefore, industry is always reluctant to come to mining areas. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) knows that.
    But before the nationalisation of the mines the Conservatives did not trouble about compensation. Houses could be wrecked and it did not matter. After nationalisation, Conservatives became interested and brought the matter to the fore. Of course it matters to the individuals who are affeced, but what shocks me about Opposition Members is that they are mute and quiet unless the argument is against a nationalised industry. Now that the mines are nationalised they become vociferous.
    The country requires coal, and the Opposition try to put all the responsibility on the coalmining industry. They are trying to ruin the nationalised industry. Is it their intention to sterilise many areas where the coal that the nation needs exists? They are encouraging people not to build concrete rafts and not to prepare against subsidence by proposing that compensation should be payable.
    I have no objection to the payment of compensation, but if Opposition Members want to make it impossible for the industry to be viable and productive, that is the way to do it. That is what they seek to do because they are so much against nationalised industry. Before nationalisation there were no arguments about the cost of subsidence. Since nationalisation more compensation has been paid to owner-occupiers because of
    1438
    damage to houses than ever before, and rightly so.
    If, in spite of what industrialists do to try to make certain that the factory floor is safeguarded against subsidence, subsidence occurs, I agree that the National Coal Board should be responsible. But if we are seeking to make the coalmining industry unprofitable and non-viable let us accept the amendment.
    If the nation requires miners to go below ground to mine coal, and if it wants a profitable coalmining industry, the nation must be prepared to pay for it. Let us not saddle the industry with all the faults we can find and all the misguided ideas of people who are not miners. Everyone knows that in building houses and factories preparations must be made to prevent subsidence, but there will be subsidence no matter how much packing is done below ground.
    Let us not sterilise great areas of coal. It is not just the area of coal that matters. The angle of subsidence stretches out, so that there can be 10 acres of coal and 30,000 or 40,000 acres involved.
    I hope that Opposition Members will not be too partisan on this issue and will be fair and just in their arguments, and make certain that they do not saddle too great a responsibility on the coalmining industry. If they do they will sterilise great areas of coal in this country which otherwise could be worked.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Eadie: I should like to attempt to reply to the debate. I do not challenge the sincerity or integrity of any hon. Gentleman who has spoken. With regard to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman), I would say to him and his other hon. Friends that I shall seek to persuade them by argument that they should not go into the lobbies and vote against the proposition which I presented to the House.
    I tried to assure my hon. Friend in the course of his remarks that the Robens Agreement still applied so far as Coventry is concerned. It is no use saying that the agreement is not worth very much when it has been honoured right up to this very day. We are discussing the question of compensation, and I know how sincere and compassionate he

    1439
    feels about the city that he represents. Compensation in itself would not solve the problem of Coventry cathedral, and we are discussing today the issue of compensation—not just compensation but compensation arising from subsidence.
    There are no changes of substance proposed in the Bill. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) mentioned rights, I can assure him that there is no change of rights in relation to this Bill. I hope to demonstrate how the Government propose to meet precisely the points raised in the course of the debate. I shall try to do it by argument and by persuasion.
    There was what I considered to be a debating point made about the length of time taken by the committee. I think it was the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) who, in a very fair contribution, made the point that he was the Minister involved in 1972 and that he had been concerned about the activity of the interdepartmental working group. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken with great compassion and concern, but if they want to make this a debating point, the House is entitled to ask what they were doing all the time in Government in respect of all these anomalies with which we are faced at the present time. There was very powerful criticism of the working of the interdepartmental working party, but if there were so many burdens imposed on people, the Opposition have done nothing about them. The hon. Member in the course of the debate made a point about the delay in relation to the working party. Indeed, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who led for the Opposition, made some rather scathing comments about the interdepartmental working party and the time that it has taken. I hope that he will concede if he is to raise the question of the time that it has taken and the lethargy of this Government, that it is equally fair that I should make the debating point that the Conservative Government had a long time in which to do something but in fact did nothing about bringing the whole matter to fruition.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I do not want the hon. Gentleman's blood pressure to rise any faster. I made it clear that
    1440
    three Governments, including a Conservative Government, were involved in this. I am not criticising. It is not a party issue. It is lethargy or inertia, but it is not a party political issue.
    Mr. Eadie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my blood pressure is fairly normal. However, it was right for me to put the reverse of the debating point which he made.
    The hon. Gentleman said that I brushed aside the Opposition's argument. We debated this matter extensively in Committee. We gave it a long run. It was a constructive debate, and it is on the record.
    I deal now with the activities of the working party, and I address myself especially to those of my hon. Friends who attached some importance to it. The report of the interdepartmental working party, completed last summer, was withdrawn for review so that account could be taken of new evidence and opinions expressed during the preparation of the Coal Industry Bill and its passage through Parliament. All this time, a great deal of study has been going on in the Department and, as soon as the major stages of the Bill were completed and most of the new evidence could be considered as having been presented—although I must inform the House that we are still waiting for a memorandum promised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—meetings of the working group were resumed.
    Following intensive discussion with the National Coal Board, a meeting of the full group was held on 18th June, and a further meeting is to take place on Friday next. It is expected that the group will be able to finalise its report before the end of the Summer Recess. The House can be assured that the Government will lose no time in coming to their own conclusions, and an early opportunity will be sought to introduce such legislation as may be required.
    It would be wrong to leave the clause to stand in its amended form meantime. It would upset completely the present balance—unfairly against the National Coal Board—and it would introduce for many people uncertainty and confusion while the new regime settled down. Then we would have another change when the

    1441
    more comprehensive and long-term solution came into effect.
    An interim arrangement of that sort is precisely not what is required at present. We want to try to resolve the problem thoroughly and fairly and to give the House an opportunity to debate it.
    Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend has been putting the case for the committee on compensation very fairly and properly. But I put it to him, I hope without irony, that he ought perhaps to consider the deliberations of the Standing Committee as having more significance and weight than even the deliberations of an interdepartmental committee, however meritorious it may be. We are applying ourselves to this matter of compensation in relation to this legislation. Why should that have less validity than the protracted deliberations of an interdepartmental committee of civil servants?
    Mr. Eadie: The answer to that is quite easy. This is a complicated matter, as the debate has shown. There is some confusion among hon. Members. In such a situation it is right for the Government to say that they will examine the proposition through an inter-departmental committee and consult those involved. We shall consult the agencies and bodies involved. This is the fair way to deal with the matter, and it certainly does not denigrate the House.
    I do not think that the Opposition can object, because that is exactly what they put forward. The subject needs study and consultation with those who are qualified to speak on it. The hon. Member for New Forest referred to the circular from the National Farmers' Union. I have studied that letter. It is full of hypothetical examples but singularly lacking in concrete examples of farmers
    who have suffered losses as a result of subsidence for which they were not compensated. It completely ignores the fact that it is the board's practice often to go well beyond its statutory liability. Because of this there has been little cause for complaint over the years.
    This letter makes no reference to the comprehensive agreement which the National Coal Board has made with the NFU about the Selby area. I wish that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) would be a little more excited about this new development. It is wealth for this country. I described it in Committee as a miniature North Sea oil find which will mean great riches not only for the area but for all our people. We have agreements with the NFU covering such things as crop loss, loss of livestock, permanent depreciation of land value and so on. Farmers can feel confident that their legitimate claims will be met until a more comprehensive and overall solution, equitable to all, can be worked out.
    It has been said that the NFU was unable to negotiate agreements with the National Coal Board. I have here the agreement on the Selby coalfield dated March 1975, not 15th July. It deals with the negotiations between the board and the NFU. There are six or seven paragraphs of negotiated agreements between these two bodies. The Government's arguments can be accepted by the House because they show that what the Government are proposing is a sensible and realistic solution in the best interests of all. We shall come forward later with a proposition to solve the problem properly rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 129.

    Division No. 284.]

    AYES

    [12.00 midnight

    Allaun, Frank

    Campbell, Ian

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Anderson, Donald

    Canavan, Dennis

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cant, R. B.

    Deakins, Eric

    Ashton, Joe

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Atkinson, Norman

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Dempsey, James

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Doig, Peter

    Bishop, E. S.

    Cohen, Stanley

    Dormand. J. D.

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Coleman, Donald

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Boardman, H.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Booth, Albert

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Dunn, James A.

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Corbett, Robin

    Dunnett, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Eadie, Alex

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    English, Michael

    Brown,, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    McElhone, Frank

    Sillars, James

    Flannery, Martin

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Small, William

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

    Madden, Max

    Spearing, Nigel

    Freeson, Reginald

    Magee, Bryan

    Stallard, A. W.

    George, Bruce

    Mahon, Simon

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Stoddart, David

    Golding, John

    Marquand. David

    Stott, Roger

    Gourlay, Harry

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Millan, Bruce

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Miller, Mrs. Millie (Ilford N)

    Tomlinson, John

    Hardy, Peter

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

    Torney, Tom

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hooley, Frank

    Moyle, Roland

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Newens, Stanley

    Ward, Michael

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Noble, Mike

    Watkins, David

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ogden, Eric

    Watkinson, John

    Hunter, Adam

    Owen, Dr David

    Weetch, Ken

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Palmer, Arthur

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartlord)

    Parry, Robert

    White, James (Pollok)

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Peart, Rt Hon Fred

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Pendry, Tom

    Whitlock, William

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Woodall, Alec

    Lambie, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Woof, Robert

    Lamborn, Harry

    Rooker, J. W.

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roper, John

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Loyden, Eddie

    Ryman, John

    Mr. Laurie Pavitt

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Sandelson, Neville

    NOES

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Baker, Kenneth

    Gray, Hamish

    Mudd, David

    Banks, Robert

    Grieve, Percy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Beith, A. J.

    Grist, Ian

    Neubert, Michael

    Benyon, W.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Hannam, John

    Pardoe, John

    Body, Richard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Park, George

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Bottomley, Peter

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Penhaligon, David

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Hunt, John

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Brittan, Leon

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Brotherton, Michael

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

    Raison, Timothy

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rees-Davies. W. R.

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Buck, Antony

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Burden, F. A.

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Knox, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lamont, Norman

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Shelton William (Streatham)

    Clegg, Walter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Shersby, Michael

    Cope, John

    Luce, Richard

    Silvester, Fred

    Crouch, David

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sims, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Drayson, Burnaby

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Madel, David

    Speed, Keith

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Mates, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mawby, Ray

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Farr, John

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Fox, Marcus

    Monro, Hector

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Freud, Clement

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Trotter, Neville

    1444

    1445

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Younger, Hon George

    Viggers, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Wakeham, John

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wall, Patrick

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Mr. Adam Butter and

    Warren, Kenneth

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Action)

    Mr. Spencern Le Marchant

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 3

    RIGHT OF BOARD TO WORK COAL IN FORMER COPYHOLD LAND
    Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 16, leave out from "pay" to "compensation" in line 17.
    Mr. Eadie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this it might be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
    No. 3, in page 6, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
    "(5) Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing the provisions of this section."
    No. 4, in page 6, line 37, leave out
    "the owner of a retained interest"
    and insert "any person"
    No. 5, in page 6, line 39, leave out from "reasonable" to end of line 43 and insert:
    "valuation expenses incurred by him for the purpose of ascertaining the value, at the date referred to in subsection (4) above, of the retained interest to which the compensation relates".
    No. 6, in page 6, line 46, at end insert—
    "() Subject to paragraph 9 of Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act, the service of a notice under subsection (2) above shall not prevent the Board from acquiring by agreement any retained interest in coal or a mine of coal comprised in or lying under land in the area to which the notice relates."
    No. 7, in page 7, line 10, at beginning insert "(a)"
    No. 8, in page 7, line 13, leave out "that land" and insert:
    "so much of that land as consists of that coal or mine of coal".
    No. 9, in page 7, line 14, at end insert—
    "and
    (b) in so far as notice of a retained interest which is given as mentioned in subsection (3)(b)
    1446
    above at a time when the Board as so entitled relates to a retained interest in any land in or under which that coal or mine of coal is comprised or lies, for the purposes of determining the amount of any compensation payable under subsection (4) above, that interest shall be treated as not subsisting in that coal or mine of coal."
    No. 10, in page 7, line 15, after "section" insert:
    "and Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act".
    No. 11, in page 7, line 23, after "section" insert:
    "and Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act".
    No. 15, in page 17, line 49, after Schedule 1 at end insert new Schedule A—

  SCHEDULE

    RETAINED INTERESTS: NOTICES AND COMPENSATION
    1. The provisions of this Schedule apply where a person (in this Schedule referred to as "the claimant") gives to the Board notice of a retained interest as mentioned in section 3(3)(b) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as a "retained interest notice").
    2.—(1) Together with a retained interest notice given by him to the Board the claimant shall furnish to the Board adequate proof of his title to the interest at the time the notice is given.
    (2) Within the period of three months beginning on the date on which the Board receive a retained interest notice or within such longer period as may be agreed between the Board and the claimant the Board shall serve on the claimant either—

    (a) a notice in the prescribed form accepting his title to the retained interest and acknowledging the obligation of the Board to pay compensation in respect of it under section 3 of this Act; or

    (b) a notice rejecting the claimant's retained interest notice;

    and in this Schedule a notice under paragraph (a) above is referred to as an "acceptance notice" and a notice under paragraph (b) above is referred to as a "rejection notice".
    (3) A rejection notice shall specify the ground or grounds on which the Board reject the claimant's retained interest notice.
    3. Subject to paragraph 5 below, as soon as practicable after the Board have served an acceptance notice on a claimant, the Board shall pay to the claimant any reasonable legal expenses incurred by him for the purposes of

    1447

    (a) establishing his ownership of the retained interest to which the acceptance notice relates; and

    (b) giving the retained interest notice by virtue of which the acceptance notice came to be served.

    4. Subject to paragraph 5 below, where, after the receipt of a retained interest notice, the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of the retained interest concerned, the service of that acceptance notice shall be a valid ground for the service of a rejection notice in respect of any other retained interest notice received by the Board after the first-mentioned notice and relating to any of the land in which subsists the retained interest in respect of which the acceptance notice was served.
    5.—(1) A claimant who—

    (a) has served a retained interest notice relating to any land (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant land"); and

    (b) is aggrieved by the service on him of a rejection notice relating to his retained interest notice, other than a rejection notice served pursuant to an order under this paragraph,

    may, within the period of 3 months beginning on the date of service of the rejection notice make an application to the county court for an order directing the Board to withdraw the rejection notice and to serve an acceptance notice in respect of the retained interest which he claims.
    (2) On an application under this paragraph, the court may direct that, in addition to the applicant and the Board, any other person who has given a retained interest notice relating to the whole or part of any of the relevant land shall be made a party to the application unless—

    (a) the Board have already served a rejection notice in respect of that person's retained interest notice; and

    (b) the time within which he might have made an application under this paragraph in respect of that rejection notice has expired without such an application having been made.

    (3) On an application under this paragraph the court shall determine whether—

    (a) the applicant, or

    (b) any other party to the application who contests the applicant's claim, or

    (c) any other person (whether a party to the application or not) on whom the Board have served an acceptance notice relating to the whole or any part of the relevant land,

    was at the time he gave his retained interest notice entitled to a retained interest in the whole or any part of the relevant land and shall order the Board (so far as they have not already done so) to serve an acceptance notice on that person or, if more than one of them were so entitled to a retained interest in the same piece of land, on that one of them whose retained notice was given first.
    (4) An order under sub-paragraph (3) above may contain such provisions as the court consider appropriate to secure—

    (a) that a rejection notice is or has been served on every party to the application (other than the Board) on whom an acceptance notice is not ordered to be or has not been served; and

    (b) that, where it appears to the court that an acceptance notice has been served which should not have been served, that notice is cancelled and that the Board bring the cancellation to the notice of the person who, if the notice had not been cancelled, would for the time being have been entitled the receive compensation under section 3(4) of this Act in respect of the interest to which the acceptance notice related.

    (5) If, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) above, the court orders the cancellation of an acceptance notice, it shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of section 3 of this Act and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph—

    (a) that the person on whom the acceptance notice was served did not have a retained interest in the relevant land at the time he served his retained interest notice; and

    (b) that the Board served a rejection notice in respect of that retained interest notice.

    (6) Nothing in paragraph 3 above shall affect the power of the court on an application under this paragraph (or in any subsequent proceedings) to make such order as to costs as it thinks fit; and any such order may make such modifications, if any, of the Board's obligation under paragraph 3 above as appear to the court to be just in the light of the other provisions as to costs contained in the order.
    6. The person having the right to receive compensation under section 3(4) of this Act in respect of a retained interest to which an acceptance notice relates shall be the person on whom that notice was served, notwithstanding that he may not own the retained interest at the time when the compensation becomes payable and, accordingly, that right shall devolve on his death and may be assigned in like manner as the right of a creditor under an unsecured debt.
    7. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 6 above, if, at the time at which compensation becomes payable in respect of a retained interest, the Board pay compensation in good faith to the person who produces the acceptance notice relating to that interest, the surrender of that notice to the Board by way of receipt for the compensation shall constitute an adequate discharge to the Board of their liability to pay that compensation, without any further proof that the person producing the acceptance notice is entitled in accordance with paragraph 6 above to receive the compensation.
    8. If at any time—

    (a) after the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of a retained interest. and

    1449

    (b) before the date on which compensation becomes payable in respect of that interest,

    the Board enter into an agreement in that behalf with the person who for the time being has the right to receive any such compensation, then, on payment to that person of such consideration as may be agreed, the Board shall be relieved of any contingent liability under subsection (4) or subsection (6) of section 3 of this Act in respect of that retained interest; and where any such agreement is entered into, paragraph 7 above shall apply in relation to the payment of the consideration agreed as it applies in relation to a payment of compensation at the time referred to in that paragraph.
    9. Without prejudice to paragraph 8 above, at any time after the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of a retained interest, they shall cease to be entitled to acquire by agreement that interest or any other retained interest in coal or a mine of coal comprised in or lying under any of the land in which subsists the retained intrest to which the acceptance notice relates.
    10.—(1) The Board shall keep, at such places as may be prescribed, a record of—

    (a) all retained interest notices given to the Board and all acceptance notices and rejection notices served by them, and

    (b) all sums paid by way of compensation under section 3(4) of this Act,

    and that record shall contain a description of the land in which subsists the retained interest (or in the case of a rejection notice, the claimed retained interest) to which each such notice or payment relates sufficient to enable the land to he identified.
    (2) The record kept under this paragraph shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable hours, and different places may be prescribed for the keeping of the record relating to retained interests in different areas.
    11. Section 55 of the Coal Act 1938 (service of notices, etc.) shall have effect as if the provisions of this Schedule were included in that Act."
    Mr. Eadie: These amendments, including the new schedule, set out a procedure for dealing with notices of retained interest in former copyhold land and payment of the relevant compensation and for the settlement of disputes.
    In order to meet the Opposition an amendment was made at the Report stage to provide that compensation to owners of retained interests shall be paid when the NCB begins to mine the coal under the land in question rather than when they first give notice of intention to do so. But complications might arise
    1450
    during the period before the compensation comes to be assessed and paid, for example through changes of ownership in the land. The procedure introduced by these amendments is designed to overcome them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 1

    SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION RELATING TO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW SUPPORT
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 16, line 6, leave out "(a)".
    Mr. Eadie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
    No. 13, in page 16, line 7, leave out from "provision" to "as" in line 9 and insert "or".
    No. 14, in page 17, line 15, leave out from "obligation" to "Any" in line 16 and insert "and".
    Mr. Eadie: These amendments transfer jurisdiction in disputes about whether or not a liability exists, for the extra costs of building precautions against subsidence which may be specified by the NCB, from an arbitrator to the Lands Tribunal. Such disputes will then be on all fours with disputes about the amounts payable.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Dormand. Mr. Eadie, Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson, Mr. Hannam; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Benn.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [Lords]
  Clause 18

    ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
    12.15 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 13, line 4, after 'conferred', insert
    'on the Secretary of State'.
    Mr. Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we taking the amendments together? If we are I should like to reserve our position on the second amendment in relation to a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): If the House would like to take them together, I agree.
    Dr. Summerskill: These are drafting amendments. In Committee the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked for confirmation of his assumption that the removal of the reference to negative resolution procedure, from Clause 1 of the earlier Bill to Clause 17, now Clause 18, of the present Bill, was a drafting change. That is so, but on re-examining Clause 18 we noticed two anomalies which call for attention. The first is that it might have been assumed that an order of the court under the emergency procedure in Clause 10 would be covered by the provision in Clause 18 (1). This requires an order or regulation under the Bill to be exercisable by statutory instrument. That is not the intention, so the first amendment makes it clear that only orders or regulations made by the Secretary of State are in view.
    The second anomaly is that a commencement order by the Secretary of State, bringing the Bill, or part of it, into force would have been subject to the negative resolution procedure. That would be unusual, and the second amendment is therefore designed to restore the normal practice.
    Mr. Monro: I have no comment to make on Amendment No. 1. I see the Lords' arguments and accept them.
    I am not so clear on Amendment No. 2, in that, at face value, it seems to be a major change from our understanding of the position which, as the hon. Lady confirmed, I raised in Committee in relation to the amendment now on the Order Paper, on the general question why it had been transferred to a different clause.
    My understanding of the Bill as it now is, and as it has been discussed three times in both Houses, is that if there were an order under it, we would have an opportunity to pray against it.
    I accept that this would not be so in relation to something with the special arrangements, but where, for instance, we are to have in the forthcoming months, or perhaps years, an order relating to English Third and Fourth Division clubs and Scottish First and Second Division clubs, under this new amendment that could be done, so far as I can see, without laying a statutory instrument against which a Prayer could be laid so that the whole House had an opportunity to discuss it.
    I am surprised at this amendment and wonder when, and for what reasons, a statutory instrument could be laid and prayed against in the House under the new wording of Clause 18. It refers to Clause 19(6), which gives the Secretary of State power to bring orders into force without discussion in this House.
    This is a very important change. All hon. Members interested in the Bill wanted the opportunity of discussing not the designation orders, which will come forward fairly soon, but the future changes in the operation of the measure which will bring in other sports grounds.
    Is my interpretation correct? If the Government decide to bring in the English Third and Fourth Division clubs and the Scottish First and Second Division clubs, will there be an opportunity to discuss the order in the House? If not, this is a fundamental change.
    Dr. Summerskill: The normal practice is being adhered to in this amendment. We are certain that what is in the Bill as it stands is an anomaly. A commencement order bringing the Bill, or part of

    1453
    it, into operation, would have been subject to negative resolution, which would have been unusual. An order under Clause 19(6) merely brings the Act into force so that designation orders may be made under Clause 1. An order under Clause 19(6) is purely formal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 2, in page 13, line 10, after 'Act', insert
    '(except an order under section 19(6) below)'—[Dr. Summerskill.]
    Order for Third Reading read—
    [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
    12.24 a.m.
    Mr. Monro: This is the end of a long saga, and I am glad that the Bill will, in due course, receive its Third Reading. It will be of great value to spectators and players of many sports in this country.
    A similar Bill was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1973 but, because of various electoral reasons, it has taken fully two years to become law. It has been improved during the period of consultation, and clubs will gain from the financial provisions that the Minister of Sport has obtained from the Pools Promoters' Association. Perhaps the Minister can give us more details of the scheme worked out with the PPA.
    The key issue now affecting the sports grounds to be designated is when the operative date will be announced. It is to be announced in a period of unparalleled inflation, and when building costs are at a peak. The point has been made in our debates that clubs must have reasonable time to carry out negotiations with local authorities. We must bear in mind that it will be very difficult to carry out ground improvements before August 1976. I hope that reasonable attention will be given to this matter by the Government, because naturally building operations can be done only in the summer months and very little can be achieved during the playing season. Will the Under-Secretary tell us something about the timing? This is of
    1454
    interest to the House but it is also crucial to getting things under way on the grounds themselves.
    I hope that the Minister can say a little about the special certificate procedure. Judging by what was said by the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, at column 11 in Standing Committee, it seems that these provisions could come into operation next week. He said that the procedure would be operative very shortly after the Bill received the Royal Assent, and that event must be imminent after tonight. This will not affect football grounds, but it could affect show grounds or other temporary stands and sporting facilities.
    Do the local authorities have at their disposal the information required to operate the Bill in the very near future? I take it from what the Under-Secretary said that we might have to have a statutory instrument to bring the designation order into effect. I hope that she can confirm that the local authorities will be able to cope with this situation from the beginning of August.
    I hope, too, that she will re-emphasise the grave concern felt by all hon. Members who have been involved in the Bill that local authorities should be flexible in implementing it and that she will give the detailed briefing of the steps that have to be taken. Nobody would wish to tolerate dangerous grounds for a day longer than necessary, and such grounds may require action to be taken in the next few months. Grounds which do not suffer from serious design defects or fire hazards, however, should be permitted a reasonable period in which to put their grounds in order, and that could take 12 months.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland kindly and courteously sent me a letter today setting out the views of the Scottish Office on licensing. I welcome what he has to say, because it seems that with the best of intentions the Government would like to see the Wheatley proposal carried out, in that the top tier will be doing the licensing. That is what is later confirmed, and it is also confirmed in local government legislation. It is possible, however, for the top tier to delegate authority to the lower tier. That would be contrary to the wishes of the Wheatley Report. I am not happy about that. However, I must reserve my judgment and hope that it works out

    1455
    better in practice than I fear may be the case, for the very reason that Lord Wheatley wishes the responsibility to be with the top tier and not the lower tier.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): As regards delegation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it will be necessary for guidance to go out to the authorities. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. We shall be stressing to the authorities the importance of the Bill. I am sure that bearing in mind the history of the Bill—its genesis, in a sense, being the Ibrox disaster—the local authorities will take their statutory duties very seriously. I have no doubt that they will take into consideration what has been said about delegation. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will find that he is happier than he thinks he is at the moment.
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for what he has said but for being here to participate in this debate.
    Another point that I must put to the hon. Lady is that in our discussion on Clause 2 we raised the possible difficulty as regards keeping records of attendances at major grounds that are sometimes used for small matches which bring in minimal gates. It seemed unnecessary that accurate records should be kept if only 200 or 300 people attended a schoolboy match or a match at which no gate money was taken. Under the strict terms of the Bill the governing body will have to keep an accurate record. That may cause a lot of unnecessary work and expense. I hope that either through local authority approval or by agreement with the Government there will he a dispensation when only a small gate is anticipated. Towards the end of our discussions in Committee we talked about an economic fee. Have the Government come to any conclusion on what that might be?
    It is disappointing that over the past couple of months there has been little publicity about the progress of the Bill. Certainly the large amount of correspondence that hon. Members on both sides of the House had at an earlier stage has died away. The Government must
    1456
    bring home to football league clubs, national stadiums and the other grounds that may be affected, what is ahead of them in the near future. I hope that the apparent lack of interest, in terms of correspondence, does not mean a lack of interest by the clubs and a lack of thought over recent months. The clubs must appreciate that in the near future they will require licences, although whether they are to be implemented before August 1976 remains to be seen. It is no use the clubs sitting back and thinking that they have unlimited time ahead of them.
    We all know how long it takes to obtain planning permission and to arrange contracts for the construction industry. Time is not on the side of the grounds which are to be designated. The Government must mount a strong publicity campaign to tell clubs what is in the Bill and what steps they must take in the near future.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said a few moments ago that the Bill stemmed, in the main, from the Ibrox disaster and other disasters. The Bill will not prevent with absolute certainty another tragedy, and certainly not a tragedy that arises from hooliganism or provocative behaviour, but it will go as far as is humanly possible to prevent the public being placed at risk. Behaviour inside and outside grounds is a matter for discussion on another occasion, and is perhaps more urgent than some aspects of the Bill, but we wish this legislation well. Interpretation is all-important and the Government bear heavy responsibility to see that the measure is implemented fairly by local authorities.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will say a few words in reply to the debate, which no doubt will continue a little longer, since other hon. Members wish to take part. I assure her that we wish the Bill well and hope that its provisions are implemented speedily and satisfactorily.
    12.37 a.m.
    Mr. Clement Freud: During the Second Reading debate the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, announced—rather as though he were a conjurer pulling a white rabbit from his hat—that he had received £650,000 from the pools promoters. All they wanted in return was to conduct a

    1457
    spot-the-ball competition. When the approbation from all sides of the House had died down, I pointed out to the Minister that the competition had been deemed to be illegal.
    I sought assurances in respect of the £650,000—which is a substantial sum for sports clubs, but which is a very small sum indeed for pools promoters. I wanted more details about the munificent sum which the Government were to contribute, and the Minister began his remarks in time-honoured fashion by saying:
    "I am surprised that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) sounded so churlish when people who, as far as I know, are conducting a lawful enterprise make an offer of this sort."
    He ended by saying:
    "I assume that this competition is continuing lawfully. If anybody thinks that it is not he will no doubt take the appropriate action in the courts."—[Official Report, 19th tune 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1799.]
    Are we expected to believe that the Government are accepting a sum of £650,000 from the pools promoters when they are merely assuming that the competition is to continue lawfully? If the pools promoters follow the course of including in their advertisements the words, "An amount of 25 per cent. or 33 per cent. has been retained for expenses, profit and taxes", it can be calculated that the sum in question is very small indeed.
    I wish to remind the House of the illegality of the spot-the-ball competitions—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in full flow, but I am anxious to understand to which provision in the Bill he is relating this argument.
    Mr. Freud: I was hoping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not ask me that. This was a promise which was made by the Minister. If the Government announce in the House something that seems to all of us to be financial generosity towards sports clubs, we should have a right to know against what this generosity is being distributed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that my generosity has now been fulfilled towards him? He has made his point. As it is Third Read-
    1458
    ing I am obliged, though it may be unfortunate, to require hon. Members to talk about what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Freud: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am constantly bowled over by your generosity, no less today than usual. I shall no longer pursue this argument; I shall simply ask the hon. Lady, taking into account the Second Reading debate and the announcement made by her hon. Friend, to allay the suspicions of my hon. Friends that this is not bribery.
    12.41 a.m.
    Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I do not wish to detain the House at this early hour of the morning, but before we conclude the Third Reading I should like some clarification of a point that I raised on Second Reading and in Committee. There will be some confusion when the Bill is on the statute book and when the owners of sports stadia are asked to enact the legislation.
    The main point about which I ask the hon. Lady concerns the certification of sports stadia with capacities in excess of 10,000. The debate two or three weeks ago largely centred around football grounds. I should like to know exactly what the Government envisage.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) so aptly said, we want flexibility in the enforcement of legislation. There will be some confusion among the sports stadia owners who erect temporary stands and, perhaps, among the cricketing and rugby football fraternities—in fact, the entire sphere of all sporting activities. All the sports stadia owners must be fully conversant with what is expected of them. I hope that there can be some clarification.
    I certainly do not wish to criticise the Minister with responsibilities for sport, who led the Government's argument on Second Reading, but there was some confusion both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I hope that the Government will make it quite clear exactly what their responsibilities are for the great temporary sporting occasions and for those other sporting grounds which are capable of holding spectators in excess of 10,000. It is important that that is spelt out for all those people.
    12.43 a.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: As a result of the careful study which this Bill has received during our earlier proceedings, a number of drafting amendments have been made. These do not call for any special mention except that our thanks are due to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for the two amendments which have just been made on Report. Had he not drawn our attention to a procedural point in connection with regulations and orders made under the Bill, we might not have noticed the anomalies which have now been removed.
    The principal change in the Bill is the addition of Clause 13, on civil liability. As my hon. Friend explained in Committee, in moving the addition of this clause, its main purpose is to make clear that the status quo is preserved. Nothing in the Bill, therefore, will affect the existing rights of a spectator injured at a football ground through the negligence of the occupier to bring an action at common law.
    I should like to take up some of the specific points raised this evening. First, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the record of attendance. Some concern was expressed in other stages of the Bill that under the provisions of Clause 2(3)(a) the local authority may require records of attendance of spectators to be kept. It was suggested that these were unnecessary where only a small gate was likely. On the other hand, it is a requirement under Clause 2(2)(a) that a safety certificate
    "shall specify the maximum number of spectators to be admitted to the stadium"
    and under Clause 2(2)(b) the local authority may also specify the maximum number to be admitted to any part of it.
    The latter provision is particularly important where, for reasons of safety, there must be a strict limit on the numbers admitted to a particular stand or terrace. Records of attendance are important for the purposes of enforcement, but the power to require the keeping of records is exercised entirely at the discretion of the local authority concerned, I do not think that there is any reason why a club should not discuss with the local authority any problem that it may have over keeping records on a particular occasion. This is a part of the flexibility of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman rightly stressed. We shall
    1460
    mention this point in the guidance which we shall be circulating to local authorities on the Bill.
    The intention is that local authorities should be able to recover costs by means of an economic fee, but this will vary from ground to ground. We cannot now give a precise estimate. The limit for fees will be prescribed by regulations under Clause 6(1)(b) in consultation with local authorities, and there will be publicity about this part of the Bill.
    The Bill originates from the tragic incident at Ibrox Park. In the extensive consultations which followed Lord Wheatley's report, it was apparent that the proposals were fully supported by everybody involved. It is a fitting tribute to Lord Wheatley's work that the Bill so closely follows the principles that he laid down.
    I should also like to pay tribute to the football and other sporting organisations, the police and the fire service, as well as all those concerned in central and local government, whose co-operation has resulted in what I believe is a useful and workmanlike Bill. It is also gratifying that the Bill will be supported by the non-statutory guide to safety at sports grounds, based on the technical appendix to Lord Wheatley's report and prepared in close consultation with the local authorities and the football authorities, among others.
    Two similar Bills have not survived. We are grateful to the Opposition for the helpful and constructive way in which they have dealt with the present one.
    Putting the Bill on the statute book will not automatically ensure the safety of football or any other sports grounds. The Bill is merely a means to an end. Vigorous action will be needed by the clubs and by central and local government alike to ensure that the purposes of the Bill are realised. I am sure that our publicity will help. Our intention is to bring the Bill into force as soon as possible, so that local authorities will at once have available to them their emergency powers, and so that my right hon. Friend will be able to make the first designation order as soon as the necessary consultations with the local authorities, the football authorities and the clubs concerned have been completed.

    1461
    Local authorities have been kept in touch with the Bill throughout, and training seminars are already arranged for local authority representatives. They will be advised about all the provisions of the Bill once it is on the statute book.
    Thereafter, it will be for each designated club to work in close co-operation with its local authority, so that all steps essential to the basic safety of spectators arc taken as soon as possible. Even where football and other sports stadia are not designated under the first order, I hope that the clubs or organisations concerned will take an early opportunity to consult their local authority on a voluntary basis, so that, for example, there may be forward planning for the occasional events when large numbers of spectators may be present.
    I am well aware that the additional expenditure likely to be incurred by football clubs in respect of safety requirements under the Bill has been a matter of deep and continuing concern for everyone concerned. This is a problem to which the Government have been giving serious attention. That is why we have been concerned to ensure that the Bill will be flexible in operation and why we have taken the opportunity to introduce certain tax concessions.
    We believe, in spite of the doubts which have been expressed, that the provisions of the Lotteries Bill will be of considerable help to the clubs. Indeed, the Government had the football clubs very much in mind in introducing the Lotteries Bill. The proposed increases in the present limits on turnover and prize money will enable the clubs to run lotteries on a scale estimated to yield an extra £2 million to £3 million a year. That estimate is based on present revenue, and the Football League clubs have accepted it.
    Another considerable source of financial help will be the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, which, as my hon. Friend explained at an earlier stage, is being set up by the Pools Promoters' Association and is expected to have an initial income of about £650,000 a year.
    Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Freud: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to raise a subject which I tried to raise and on which I was ruled out of order?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was a long time before I ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order. The hon. Lady will no doubt confine herself, as I asked the hon. Gentleman to confine himself, to the matters in the Bill, which means that she will not be able to answer the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps I may answer the hon. Gentleman after the debate, if he will see me later. I have a very good reply to his point. You are quite sure that I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once my attention is drawn to it I must play to the whistle and observe the rules. I am afraid that the hon. Lady must confine herself to what is in the Bill.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Bill provides the basic plan and the necessary statutory powers. As I have indicated, there are some financial means available. What is now needed, however, is the will and determination of everybody involved to see that safety at football grounds and other grounds reaches as quickly as possible those standards which will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the danger of another Ibrox disaster is finally removed.
    Mr. Freud: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the passing of the Third Reading is conditional upon the Pools Promoters' Association chipping in with £650,000, is it really not in order to raise this subject?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The passing of the Bill is conditional upon nothing but will of the House of Commons.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

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

IMMIGRATION
12.53 a.m.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am very glad to catch your eye even at this early hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after four unsuccessful attempts at the Ballot. Hon. Members are entitled to ask—and some have asked me—what is behind this debate. Am I moved by colour prejudice? Why should the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, who presumably has very few immigrant constituents, want to speak on immigration statistics?
I want to try to answer those questions at the start, then to show the lack of relevant up-to-date statistics, and, finally, to point out the dangerous effect this has on community services and relations. I wish also to urge Her Majesty's Government to obtain at once all necessary information here and overseas, and meanwhile to halt immigration until that information is available and has been digested.
The answers to the questions which I pose are that I have no greater colour prejudice than the average, and less than many. I believe, however, that in England we are highly over-populated, and that if immigrants who are already here find difficulties over schooling, housing and generally being assimilated into the community—as they do—bringing in more immigrants will do great harm to race relationships and lead to coloured people being treated as second-class citizens, which I believe all of us wish to try to avoid.
As to the second question, hon. Members have national responsibilities as well as constituency responsibilities. I believe—and have ever since I have been in the House, since 1964—that this is a dangerous and growing national problem. In addition, I have many constituents, newly arrived in my area over the last few years, from districts where overcrowding is acute, and they themselves do not mince their words as to the dangers and their feelings when they, as they put it, were driven from their own home areas.
No one except the deaf, the blind and the prejudiced can say that there is no problem to solve. One has only to read the papers, walk the streets and watch the
1464
classes of schoolchildren. As a nation we have acted as ostriches, pretending that if we shut our eyes this problem would go away. Well, it will not and it does not, and every month it becomes greater. Governments of all hues have acted far too late over this matter. The Conservative Government have been far more aware of the ordinary citizen's point of view, and the Labour and Liberal parties—who seem to be absent entirely—believe that all should be allowed to enter here regardless of the conditions in this country.
For a proper assessment of the problem—it is this that I have raised tonight—we need to know how many of each race are already here, where they are in England, and what their birth rates are. We must know how many people could come here, where they could come from, and what races would come here. Until we obtain these statistics, accurate and up to date, and examine them in relation to the country's housing and unemployment situation, I do not believe that we can devise policies to solve this growing problem, which I believe, is a great danger to the country.
For nearly a year now I have been corresponding with the Office of Population and Censuses, and later with the Home Secretary. I have files of papers, but I am little the wiser at the end of it. Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to read the statistics as they are published, but certainly the information that should be available is not, either as to numbers here, or how many are entitled to come here.
Last summer, I think in August, I was told that it would not be before the end of 1974 that certain information could be extracted from the 1971 Census. I also gather that information obtained in the 1971 Census will not be taken again at the next census. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm or deny this, and let us know whether all the information taken in the 1971 Census will be repeated and, perhaps, expanded.
A letter to me from the Home Office, signed by the Minister of State and dated 13th April, showed, in my opinion, such a lack of urgency and was so unsatisfactory that I decided to ask for this debate. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
"I remain of the view that the Census provides us. and indeed local authorities, with

1465
ample information about the size and distribution of the immigrant communities to allow local assessments of the needs of these communities—And plans to meet those needs—to be considered and drawn up."
He went on to deny the need for more details and the regular updating of estimates of those likely to come here.
It must be obvious that figures which are not available until three and a half years after the census and are based only on a 1 per cent. sample are useless to local authorities and Members of Parliament. How they can be of much use to the Home Office, as was said, I do not know. If there is to be no limit on the number entering each year and no requirement for an immigrant to state where he wants to go in England, how are the unfortunate councils, social workers and others to plan ahead?
These council difficulties were highlighted in an article in the Evening News of Monday, 30th June. It was headed:
"Asian influx is council headache."
It described how Wandsworth Council for Community Relations appealed through the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) to the Home Secretary, asking him to ensure that the immigration department kept councils better informed about new arrivals. It was the influx of Kenyan Asians which led to this. The reported remarks continued:
"… unless we are given estimates, we have no way of knowing how many families are coming to the borough and no chance to make arrangements …"
Three years ago, Wandsworth, at the height of the influx of Ugandan Asians, was declared a "red" area because of the borough's housing and social problems. This is very alarming and proves that my demand for accurate, up-to-date statistics readily available is necessary.
On 25th January 1973, in a statement on immigration my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary said:
"Our first responsibility as a Government is for the well-being of all the people in this country. No one should be in any doubt about our determination to discharge that duty through effective control over entry from overseas, through orderly arrangements for those whom we admit, and through the pursuit of positive policies to maintain and improve good community relations."—[Official Report, 25th January 1973; Vol 849, c. 656.]
1466
I hope that the Minister of State can assure me that he and the Government also have the interests of all people as their first responsibility. I want to hear whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems, has a plan to tackle them and, as a first step, will provide accurate, up-to-date and understandable statistics, so that Members of Parliament can debate this very important subject and can inform their constituents whether the problem is being tackled properly.
1.5 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) began by saying that he did not wish to introduce any racialist note into the debate. I am afraid that some of his introductory comments verged on that and tended to inflame such feelings. Some of his good points were lost completely in that kind of attitude and also in a misunderstanding of what is the nature of the rights of immigrants to this country.
In a country like Canada it is clear who is a Canadian citizen and who is not. If Canada wishes to accept immigrants it does so according to well-defined tests of the needs of Canada for new immigrants. In this country there has never been a clear definition of who is a British citizen. There will be by the time this Parliament has expired, because the Government intend to introduce such legislation. Until 1948 every person born anywhere in the British Empire was a British subject with complete and unrestricted right of entry to this country. Successive Governments since then have cut down those rights, but many remain. What is left is a residual commitment to people who had established rights at the time when they had some citizenship link with this country.
The two areas of immigration from the new Commonwealth—I noticed that the hon. Gentleman restricted all his remarks to new Commonwealth settlers—are from dependants of those who came here before 1st January 1973 and the East African Asian passport holders to whom we gave a commitment, at the time when East African countries became independent, that we would look after them if there was any difficulty. To

1467
those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in just the same way as the hon. Gentleman and myself, and who hold British passports but are East African Asians, we have said that we shall allow them to come to this country if they obtain a voucher.
We have restricted the number of vouchers issued each year, so that they can come in an orderly way. The last Conservative Government raised the number to 3,500, and we have raised it this year to 5,000. The effect of that is that about 20,000 East African Asians are allowed to come here each year. In addition, in relation to dependants of those who came before 1st January 1973 there is an existing commitment to a substantial number of people who live in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, mainly the latter two countries. These are allowed to come to this country when they obtain an entry certificate.
There is a substantial delay in getting an entry certificate from one of the high commissions in the sub-continent. That delay under the last Conservative Government had extended to as much as four years before obtaining the first appointment. Often it was a total of seven to eight years before people got an entry voucher. I regard that as totally inhuman. We have done our best to increase the flow of people who have this right—a right preserved by the Conservative Government in their 1971 Act—to be allowed to join their husbands who live here, so that the family can be reunited. It is clear that both commitments are finite. There are only a certain number of East African Asian passport holders and only a certain number of dependants of people living here, necessarily restricted by the number of people who were allowed to come and settle here and work in the period before 1973.
It is not possible to define precisely what that number is. for obvious reasons, because a substantial number came before 1st January 1973, when no counting was done of new Commonwealth citizens who were allowed to enter. We have some estimate, but we have never disclosed what that estimate is, nor did any preceding Government, for obvious reasons.
Of course. not all the people who have this right will come. Apart from the issue
1468
of vouchers to passport holders, we do not know how many will be processed in any one year. Last year 21,745 came in from the new Commonwealth. They comprised basically the two categories which I have already indicated. That was a slight drop on the preceding year—the last year of the Conservative Government—when 24,264 came in.
The average over preceding years has been of the order of 40,000. It will probably come back to 40,000 with the increases which we have made this year. But the 40,000 will not be in addition to those who had rights which existed before we came into office. Far from it. It will simply be draining the two pools faster than was otherwise intended. The result will be that when we have dealt with these two residual areas of migration. the problem—if it is a problem—of new Commonwealth immigration will virtually be completed, because the number of new males coming from the new Commonwealth for work was substantially reduced in 1964–65 by the Labour Government Therefore, all that we are now doing is honouring the commitments entered into by two previous Governments. We intend to honour those commitments as quickly as we can.
I turn now to the basic point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to urge upon the Government. He posed the question: if these people come to areas of this country without warning, how can local authorities plan for their reception? Again, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of our immigration control, as against, say, that of the Canadians. In Canada, as the whole thing is done by quotas, it is possible to define precisely who will come, when, and where they will go. These are people coming with rights. There is no way in which this country can apply to them an obligation to go to a particular area, nor, indeed, to say when and in what numbers they are to come. Therefore, no Government—neither the Conservative nor the preceding Labour Government—have been able to plan with the degree of accuracy that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put upon us now.
It will be possible, in the changed situation which will emerge after we have redefined citizenship and dealt with the two residual areas of migration that we have, to introduce an immigration law which

1469
will allow us to do that. Indeed, I hope that we shall be able to do that. We shall then be able to plan and, I hope, prepare the migrant for rehabilitation in this country in a way that we have not been able to do before. But we cannot do it at the moment.
In four or five letters which I have written to the hon. Gentleman over the last six months I have tried to explain this point. I am afraid that I have not entirely succeeded in explaining it to him, but I hope that the House, at any rate, will accept that it is not possible to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes, desirable though it may be, at this stage of our immigration story.
Mr. Hawkins: How many years will it take before the pools are drained?
Mr. Lyon: I have already indicated publicly that it will be possible to end our commitment to East African passport holders, though not to passport holders living in India, by the end of this Parliament. It is not possible to give an accurate prognosis about the other main area of migration—dependants from the Indian sub-continent—because much depends on the speed with which we can process the applications. It is not as clear how many might be involved. I can foresee that within a reasonable period we shall have ended this area of migration.
The census figures give us the only true basis of planning, whatever our social planning. If the hon. Gentleman says that the figures are too outdated for use for immigration, they are too outdated for use for every other purpose. Yet they are the basic source of any planning material—housing, social services, social security, or any other area of social planning. There is no reason, therefore, why we should not use them, recognising the difficulties about updating, as the basis of our planning in relation to migration. Indeed, we do so.
It is possible to obtain from the Census a figure of how many new Commonwealth citizens are here. The 1971 Census indicated that there were about 1,486,000 here at that time, of whom about 1 million were born in the new Commonwealth, the remainder having been born here. Updating that with the figures which we have published about those horn in the United Kingdom, and
1470
those who have come here since, as immigrants, the total should be about 1,731,000, of whom about 598,000 were born in this country, which is a little over one-third. A substantial number of those coloured people were born in this country and are therefore as British as the hon. Gentleman or myself. They have the greatest stake in the future, as the new Commonwealth population is comparatively young, without the elderly representatives which the rest of the population have. The proportion of births to the total number of new Commonwealth citizens here is comparatively high. Therefore the population is likely to increase to about three millioin by the middle of the 1980s.
Those people live in a comparatively small number of areas. As they become more familiar with the culture and background of this country, and as discrimination against them ceases, it is likely that they will move from these areas. Therefore, the problem of an intense concentration of new Commonwealth population is peculiar to something like 25 areas of this country, and is likely to exist for another 10 to 15 years, by which time dispersal should have begun in earnest.
We must plan to concentrate our resources into those areas over the coming few years. I am anxious that we should do so. I hope that I have an ally in the hon. Gentleman in seeking to persuade Governments that that is what they should do. I am convinced, as is the hon. Gentleman, that this country will face serious problems unless those difficulties are tackled at an early stage. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will do a service to race relations by trying to pretend that somehow we can easily dispose of this problem.
There is no quick solution. There are those who have suggested that we should send back the people who have come. As I have indicated, about one-third were born here, and of the other two-thirds a substantial number are now citizens of this country and could not in any sense be sent back, even if any Government were prepared to accept such an inhuman policy.
What is clear is that we now have a multi-racial society and we shall have it for the rest of our history. Therefore, we have to learn how to live as a multi-racial

1471
society. That means that we have to give every black person the same rights as every white. We have to create a situation in which he can compete effectively with whites.
Most of the immigrants who have come in the last 20 years have come from relatively poor rural areas, and many of them are illiterate, even in their own language. If they are to compete effectively with those who are living here, even our own indigenous poor, it is essential that they should have given to them substantial resources, in order to bring them up at any rate to that level. That—sometimes called positive discrimination—is not giving anything special. It is merely correcting the disadvantage they suffer. Unless we correct it, there is a serious problem awaiting us—a problem that might be as
1472
serious as anything that has occurred in the United States.
It is because I believe passionately that these people have to have fair and equal treatment that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do all that I can to insist that resources are made available. But at present it is a very difficult area in which to urge that upon government. When resources are available, I hope that the diversion will take place. I think that we have enough statistics to know where the people who need help are. What we need is the political will to ensure that they get it. If the hon. Gentleman's debate has contributed to that end, I am very grateful to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjoured accordingly at twenty-two minutes past One o'clock

  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  DIVING TECHNOLOGY
  DIVING TECHNOLOGY
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NORTH-WEST REGION
  NORTH-WEST REGION
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  TUC AND CBI (TALKS)
  TUC AND CBI (TALKS)
  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS OFFICE
  PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS OFFICE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  CROCODILES (IMPORTS)
  CROCODILES (IMPORTS)
ENVIRONMENT
  Chequers
  Chequers
  Chemical Waste Rubbish Tip (Pitsea)
  Chemical Waste Rubbish Tip (Pitsea)
  Coaches
  Coaches
  Railway Workshops
  Railway Workshops
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Transport Subsidies
  Transport Subsidies
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
  Railways
  Railways
  High Alumina Cement
  High Alumina Cement
  Government Offices (Rental)
  Government Offices (Rental)
  Housing Improvement Allocations (London)
  Housing Improvement Allocations (London)
  Blythe Bridge Bypass
  Blythe Bridge Bypass
  Container Traffic
  Container Traffic
  Construction Industry (Sub-contracting)
  Construction Industry (Sub-contracting)
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Rail and Bus Services
  Rail and Bus Services
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  A590 (Lindale Hill)
  A590 (Lindale Hill)
  Calcium Chloride (Cement Setting Agent)
  Calcium Chloride (Cement Setting Agent)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Architects
  Architects
  Drunken Driving Convictions (Licence Endorsements)
  Drunken Driving Convictions (Licence Endorsements)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Bodies and Local Authorities (Spending Power)
  Public Bodies and Local Authorities (Spending Power)
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Social Wage
  Social Wage
  Income Tax (Overseas Pensions and Benefits)
  Income Tax (Overseas Pensions and Benefits)
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Printing
  Government Printing
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Procedures (Review)
  Parliamentary Procedures (Review)
  Research Assistants (Library Passes)
  Research Assistants (Library Passes)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Fish
  Fish
  Trade Directories
  Trade Directories
  Retail Price Maintenance
  Retail Price Maintenance
  NFU Development Trust Ltd. And FMC Ltd.
  NFU Development Trust Ltd. And FMC Ltd.
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Catering Workers
  Catering Workers
  Work Creation Schemes
  Work Creation Schemes
  Employment Agencies Act 1973
  Employment Agencies Act 1973
  Inland Revenue Offices, Bootle
  Inland Revenue Offices, Bootle
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Wage Rates
  Wage Rates
  Government and Local Government Employees
  Government and Local Government Employees
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Complaints Procedure)
  Police (Complaints Procedure)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Offshore Installations (Policing)
  Offshore Installations (Policing)
  Wild Animals and Birds
  Wild Animals and Birds
  Rapists
  Rapists
  Dangerous Driving (Foreign Drivers)
  Dangerous Driving (Foreign Drivers)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Women's Insurance Contributions
  Women's Insurance Contributions
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Fire Precautions)
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Fire Precautions)
  Breathalysers (Successful Prosecutions)
  Breathalysers (Successful Prosecutions)
SCOTLAND
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Agricultural Students
  Agricultural Students
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Crofters
  Crofters
  Agricultural Labour
  Agricultural Labour
  Local Government Finance (Working Party)
  Local Government Finance (Working Party)
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Fire Precautions)
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Fire Precautions)
  Electoral Machinery
  Electoral Machinery
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Store Cattle
  Store Cattle
  Tourism
  Tourism
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Crofters and Hill Farmers
  Crofters and Hill Farmers
DEFENCE
  Stationery and Printing
  Stationery and Printing
  Guided Weapons (Foreign Purchases)
  Guided Weapons (Foreign Purchases)
  United States Air Force
  United States Air Force
  NATO Air Forces
  NATO Air Forces
  Military Bands
  Military Bands
  Oman
  Oman
  Port Edgar (Naval Base)
  Port Edgar (Naval Base)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  "Arts with the People"
  "Arts with the People"
  Direct Grant Schools
  Direct Grant Schools
  Post-school Education
  Post-school Education
  School Government
  School Government
  Education Colleges (Reorganisation)
  Education Colleges (Reorganisation)
  Universities
  Universities
  Gifted Pupils
  Gifted Pupils
  Teachers (Employment)
  Teachers (Employment)
  Day Release
  Day Release
  Works of Art (Valuation)
  Works of Art (Valuation)
  National Theatre
  National Theatre
  The Arts (Patronage)
  The Arts (Patronage)
  National Heritage
  National Heritage
  Works of Art (Display Facilities)
  Works of Art (Display Facilities)
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Theatre Museum
  Theatre Museum
  Teachers (Ealing)
  Teachers (Ealing)
  Further Education (Handicapped Persons)
  Further Education (Handicapped Persons)
  Secondary Education (Parental Choice)
  Secondary Education (Parental Choice)
  Bullock Report
  Bullock Report
  Workers' Educational Association
  Workers' Educational Association
  Postgraduate Education (Finance)
  Postgraduate Education (Finance)
  School Building Programme (Lincolnshire)
  School Building Programme (Lincolnshire)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Normal College, Bangor
  Normal College, Bangor
  Reorganisation (Local Plans)
  Reorganisation (Local Plans)
  Travel Concessions
  Travel Concessions
  Education Authority Employees
  Education Authority Employees
  South Tyneside (Schools)
  South Tyneside (Schools)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Research
  Research
  Student Costs
  Student Costs
  Bangor College of Education
  Bangor College of Education
  Children (Reading and Mathematics)
  Children (Reading and Mathematics)
  University Lecturers (Pay)
  University Lecturers (Pay)
  School Dentists
  School Dentists
WALES
  Local Government Staff
  Local Government Staff
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Store Cattle
  Store Cattle
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Store Cattle
  Store Cattle
  Animals (Smuggling)
  Animals (Smuggling)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Veterinary Profession
  Veterinary Profession
TRADE
  Wrecks
  Wrecks
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Commercial Agents (European Community Directive)
  Commercial Agents (European Community Directive)
  Tourism
  Tourism
INDUSTRY
  Questionnaires
  Questionnaires
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Software
  Software
  Postal Services (Deliveries)
  Postal Services (Deliveries)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Wages
  Wages
  Statutory Payments (Non-Receipt)
  Statutory Payments (Non-Receipt)
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (LEGAL AID)
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (LEGAL AID)
  SHRIEVAL LIST
  SHRIEVAL LIST
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Newspaper Correspondents (Briefings)
  Newspaper Correspondents (Briefings)
  Outward Bound School
  Outward Bound School
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Visitors (Thanet)
  Health Visitors (Thanet)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  National Health Service Staff
  National Health Service Staff
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Supplementary Benefit Recipients (Lambeth)
  Supplementary Benefit Recipients (Lambeth)
  Telephones (Assistance)
  Telephones (Assistance)
  Rickets (Immigrants)
  Rickets (Immigrants)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Termination of Pregnancy Experiment
  Termination of Pregnancy Experiment
  Benefits (Statistics)
  Benefits (Statistics)
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles
  Disabled Housewives
  Disabled Housewives
  Prescriptions (Leek)
  Prescriptions (Leek)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Benefit Payments (Giro Cheques)
  Benefit Payments (Giro Cheques)
  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil Prices
  North Sea Oil Prices
  Oil Storage and Distribtuion Terminals
  Oil Storage and Distribtuion Terminals
  Offshore Oil (Fire Precautions)
  Offshore Oil (Fire Precautions)
  Electricity and Gas (Payment Schemes)
  Electricity and Gas (Payment Schemes)
  Gas Cookers (Pilot Light Ignition)
  Gas Cookers (Pilot Light Ignition)
  Oil and Gas Prospecting (Essex)
  Oil and Gas Prospecting (Essex)
  Power Supply Requirements
  Power Supply Requirements
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Gas and Electricity (Consumer Consultation)
  Gas and Electricity (Consumer Consultation)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

LORD RYDER OF EATON HASTINGS
Sir Sydney Thomas Franklin Ryder, Knight, having been created Baron Ryder of Eaton Hastings, of Eaton Hastings in Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Goodman and the Lord Pritchard.
The Duke of Leinster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BROADCASTING OF LORDS' PROCEEDINGS
2.49 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to ensure that the proceedings of this House are broadcast by the BBC.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the broadcasting of proceedings in Parliament will be considered in the light of the experiment in another place. Any decision on future policy will be for both Houses and of course the broadcasting authorities.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, does the noble Minister appreciate the importance of ensuring that the people of this country realise that we have a Second Chamber, and that we could, in fact, contribute much to the information which the general public receive from the House of Commons broadcasts?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that the general public are aware that we have a Second Chamber,
1102
although I share some of the doubt about whether the media—at least the newspapers—convey sufficiently the deliberations and the value of our thoughts.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, as one who opposed over a good many years the televising of the other place, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, having listened to the radio broadcasts, my worst fears were realised and that it was a non-success?
Lord SHEPHERD: If I may say so, my Lords, that is a personal expression of opinion on which I would not wish to comment.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the radio proceedings in another place are regarded by the people in England as "Children's Hour"? I hope that we shall not have that catastrophe inflicted on this place.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not share that view. I believe that the radio has given to those who wish to listen to matters of national importance an opportunity of hearing Parliament and understanding the issues. This is, however, a matter of personal opinion. If we have an opportunity for debating the matter it will be open to all Members to express their personal points of view. I have no doubt that so far as the Government are concerned we regard the experiment as a success.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the quarter-hour broadcasts year by year have been outstandingly fair and successful, that to have them illustrated by comments from the actual speeches made has been very much appreciated by all who listen to them; and that behind it all is great technical skill on the part of those who prepare the programme?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. If I remember one part of that experiment, it was when the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary went to the House at about 10 o'clock at night to make a Statement in regard to Mr. Hills. If ever the value of sound radio was demonstrated, that was the occasion.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, anent this

1103
horrible word "media" and its misapplication, that more opportunity ought to be given to the Press in the Gallery of this House? Since there is no accommodation whatever for the Press to get the opportunity of mixing with noble Lords in this Chamber, would that not make a great improvement?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would suggest that that is another matter and something for noble Lords to consider perhaps on another occasion.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we had an experiment with television in this House some years ago and that while we burned under the heat of the lights, the Front Bench tried to be prima donnas?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if there was any question of prima donnas, it was not confined solely to the Front Benches.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: OVERBOOKING
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 percentage of oversales or overbooking is regarded as essential by British Airways; whether this applies to all types of flight and, if not, which are exempt; how many passengers have missed their flight thereby in the past 12 months; and whether such a policy is acceptable from a nationalised undertaking; and if they will make a Statement.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, since leave to appeal to your Lordships' House has been granted in a case relating to this Question, I must confine myself to matters of fact. I understand that the Chairman of British Airways has written to my noble friend and that the following is the information which she seeks. Overbooking operates to some degree on all British Airways' scheduled flights. The degree is variable being dependent on many factors. The Overseas Division figure for 1974–75 for passengers offloaded was 148 or about 0·01 per cent.
1104
The percentage for the European Division was about 0·05 per cent. but this includes also passengers refused carriage for any reason, including, for example, agents' and reservations errors. British Airways point out the frequency of European flights is such that most passengers who are refused carriage are enabled to travel by other flights within a short time.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while disagreeing completely that my Question, dealing with general matters, can in any way be sub judice, may I ask whether the Minister could comment on this point so that we can ascertain the Government's feelings? Is the Minister aware that British Airways are now computerised throughout and that any computer booking system can asterisk, on any list, passengers who have paid in advance? In view of the fact that nationalised industries have a special responsibility to consider the public interest, would the Government recommend that this be done and that passengers who have paid in advance have priority?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I shall be pleased to pass on that suggestion.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I regard that as progress. I hope that my noble friend may be able to report good progress; but may I ask, with regard to the percentage figures that he gave us for British Airways European Division, whether he could give us the actual numbers?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I regret that there is some difficulty in getting the actual number of "no-shows", because other things are included in the figures available; but it is quite clear that the magnitude is pretty small.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, would the Minister say how it comes about that he is called upon to answer Questions in this place on behalf of a nationalised undertaking when it is they who are responsible for day-to-day administration and not the Government? It would be well to have this information, because it does not operate in another place.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the information that I have given was something

1105
which the Government thought in the circumstances could be given.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, might I, through my noble friend, ask whether it is not correct that this is not day-to-day information, but a matter of annual figures? Secondly, I wonder whether my noble friend does not think it strange that these computers are unable to give us a figure for the past 12 months. Can he ask British Airways whether the computers will be able to provide annual figures in future?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the figures that I have given are annual. The only difficulty is in the case of the European Division where the figures include not only "no shows" but errors by agents and reservations. Whether it is worth while making a division of that figure I am not in a position to know, for I do not manage British Airways.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the majority of domestic carriers in the US are required to compensate overbooked passengers on a punitive scale? Do the Government have a view about whether this is desirable in this country?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would suggest that that supplementary question is taking us a little close to sub judice matters and to matters which are before this House. I should have thought that in the light of the situation any questions on this matter should be of a factual nature eliciting information and not opinion and comment.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether any intimation is given to persons who purchase airways tickets that they may not be able to go on the flight they booked for; and, if so, what is the nature of that information?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, on the question of eliciting information, can the Minister tell the House whether, if all scheduled flights are subject to overbooking, this should not be mentioned in advertisements encouraging people to book?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may say so, I think the Minister is being put in a very awkward situation in having to reply on behalf of a nationalised industry on such very detailed matters. These are matters which clearly cannot be within the Minister's competence; neither would it be possible, I suggest, for the Minister fully to grasp them in preparing for these questions. The noble Baroness is a member of a very important committee. Much of the information she is asking for, I have no doubt she has already got. I suggest that one must recognise the limitations on Ministers in answering questions of this particular type.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, I am a member of a committee. I have not got the information for which I have asked. It is extremely difficult to get it. Might I ask whether he would not agree that it is of no use setting up consumer councils if consumers cannot get information—and that if we cannot get it in this House, what possible chance has the ordinary person of getting it?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness as a member of a consumers' committee tells me that she is not able to get this sort of information—information which I should have thought a consumers' committee would be expected to have—then if she tells me why she cannot get the information I will see what I can do about it.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, surely this is not the point. The point is that the whole House is interested in this matter and is entitled to have that information. May I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the noble Baroness usually wins her cases and ought not the Government to take more notice?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am prepared to take notice of what the noble Baroness was after. What I was seeking to establish—and I thought I had the sense of the House with me—was that it is very difficult for a Minister to come to this Box and answer supplementary questions about matters of so much detail concerned with the everyday running of a company. I have said to the noble Baroness that if she cannot get this

1107
information as a member of the committee, I will see what I can do to help her.

POST OFFICE: REGISTERED MAIL
3.1 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to give directions of a general character to the Post Office to make ex gratia payments as full compensation to customers aggrieved by the loss of registered inland packets who have been misled by out-of-date literature distributed by the Post Office into paying an insufficient charge.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am advised that the Post Office is in principle and in certain cases prepared to give ex gratia payments to customers who have suffered financially as a result of negligence on its part. I do not think it would be appropriate to invoke the powers of the Secretary of State for Industry in order to direct the Post Office to make ex gratia payments. I can however tell the noble Lord that the Post Office is currently instructing its offices to destroy stocks of registered envelopes with the out-of-date fees printed on them.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I accept with gratitude the reply of the noble Lord. Will the noble Lord do his best to persuade the Post Office to deal with the following matter? In a recent case an unfortunate Mr. Thomas Moffatt of Cambridge purchased a registered envelope and paid the appropriate fee as printed on the envelope to cover himself against the loss of £500. He then found the Post Office, as a matter of law, successfully resisting his claim for the loss of the money on the ground that the envelope was out-of-date. Mr. Moffatt had covered himself, unbeknown to him, for only £150. Would the noble Lord indicate to the chairman of the Post Office that it would be appropriate in this case that not only should full compensation be paid, but also Mr.
1108
Moffatt's costs should be paid in bringing his unsuccessful action against the Post Office?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am aware of the recent case that has prompted the noble Lord's sympathy and concern, as indeed it has mine. This matter has been the subject of legal proceedings, and although the plaintiff lost the case I have noted the remarks of the judge, as quoted in the Press, which were critical of the Post Office. I am in no position to take sides, but I am sure the Post Office will have regard to any lessons which may be learned from this case.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that where the State has a monopoly on a necessity, such as in this case, they have a special responsibility to be fair to the customers who have no alternative but to use that service? The case quoted by the noble Lord would seem to be one where fairness will not be seen to be done unless, in addition to destroying out-of-date literature, which has now been done, the State faces up to the fact that, through the Post Office, they have a responsibility to this customer who was put to some trouble, expense and loss through no fault of his own.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will pass on what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend. Without taking any sides, the account in the Press was not wholly accurate. I am informed that at one post office this customer bought an envelope with the wrong amount on it, then took it to another one where he was advised that he should pay rather more but, for some reason or other, did not do so.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us for how many months the Post Office was selling fraudulent registered envelopes, and what kind of proceedings would be taken against any private monopolist who engaged in a similarly fraudulent practice?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am advised that registered envelopes carrying information about registration fees, since superseded by those announced in February of this year, have, up to now, continued to be issued to the public. All

1109
post offices had been instructed to draw purchasers' attention to the fact that information carried on the backs of these envelopes was out of date by striking it through. The Post Office had decided to adopt this course, apparently, for reasons of economy. I understand that supplies of new envelopes are available now and the Post Office, since yesterday, have been instructing their offices to destroy old stock.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the Government assure us that this fraudulently obtained money will be repaid? To issue envelopes of this sort with this instruction is a fraud by any law.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Post Office of course always make ex gratia payments in what they regard as appropriate cases and where the negligence and liability is theirs.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, could the Minister tell us in a word why the Post Office does not regard this to be a suitable case in which to make an ex gratia payment?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must repeat that the Post Office is no longer a Government Department. It won its case, although the judge clearly had great sympathy with the plaintiff. For that reason, it is not prepared to give an ex gratia payment.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, is the Post Office going to fire the fool who permitted this to happen? If not, are the Government going to fire the head of the Post Office?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we will certainly take note of what my noble friend has said. I am still not happy that the new wording printed on the registered envelope is sufficiently clear. In fact, I bought one this morning and I was more confused when I left the post office than when I went in! I have therefore suggested this morning to the Post Office that the counter staff should give every customer buying a registered envelope an information sheet setting out
1110
clearly the registration fees and the various amounts of compensation. This suggestion is being considered.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the trial judge in this case found as a fact that the plaintiff was entirely truthful and was given no warning or indication whatsoever at any time by the Post Office that he was paying an insufficient charge.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I believe the judge was very sympathetic to the plaintiff; but there again, I do not want to take sides in this case.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, does the Minister know whether the amount of Ministerial and official time which has been expended on this matter may not in cost equate to considerably more than the £500? Would it not have been highly respectable to have made the payment without this rather discreditable argument?
Lord BYERS: My Lords, as the new stock is not satisfactory, is this going to be destroyed too?
Lord STRABOLGI: I hope not, my Lords. As I say, the instructions to destroy the old stock were given yesterday.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, in view of the grievous loss suffered by this innocent individual, can the noble Lord say whether the Post Office can be prosecuted, either under the Sale of Goods Act, or the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the charges and other terms and conditions applying to registration of postal packets and the limitations of Post Office liability are spelt out in Sections 28 to 30 of the Post Office Act 1969.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is this not another case of one law for the rich and another for the poor?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with that useful rejoinder, may I suggest that we move to the next Question?

FAT CATTLE: MEAT PLANT PRICES
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the difference in price being paid to farmers for fat cattle in Northern Ireland compared to that ruling in Great Britain by the meat factories.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the current difference between prices paid by Northern Ireland meat plants and comparative prices in Great Britain is in the region of £3 per live hundredweight. I should add that at the moment, because a variable premium is payable on fat cattle in the United Kingdom, the return to Northern Ireland producers is within £1 per hundredweight of that to producers in Great Britain.
I am concerned that, in the current situation of plentiful supply, prices paid to producers in Northern Ireland are lower than might be expected, bearing in mind comparative producer prices in Great Britain, which is the main market for Northern Ireland beef. This is a similar situation to that prevailing last autumn. Meat plants in Northern Ireland benefit from an employment subsidy when cattle supplies are scarce, and I consider they should take a less niggardly attitude towards pricing when cattle are plentiful, in order to foster the longer-term health of the industry. I know that my concern is shared by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask whether he is aware that is costs only £1 per hundredweight to shift cattle live to the English coast? Is he also aware that a considerable problem faces anybody wishing to export cattle to this country, because of the inadequacy of shipping facilities, and do the Government intend to do something to improve the situation? Furthermore, are the Government
1112
aware that this is not solely a Northern Ireland problem, and that the overhang of beef at a lower price on this market has a much greater effect in a situation of over-supply than at any other time?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I accept the noble Viscount's general point. Something is in fact being done about it. There have been intensive discussions with the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Trust, with a view to putting up the lairage at Cairnryan, at the other end of the Larne crossing. The Agricultural Trust are doing this in conjunction with local people, and this should help the situation. Another effort is also being made but is a good deal further from fruition. Discussions are being held on getting together a farmers' co-operative or some similar body to run their own cattle boats. This could improve matters, but there are a good many difficulties at present. The Government are aware of them and agree with the desirability of getting something done.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERNEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this problem divides itself into two halves, one of which concerns MCAs and the other concerns transportation? May I ask the noble Lord whether he would urgently consider the revaluation of the Green Pound? Is it not ridiculous that at the moment we have 18 per cent. in this country and 20 per cent. in Eire and yet our common pound, if I may so call it, is the same? Does not the noble Lord's mind boggle as much as mine over this? On the question of transportation, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend, when he considers the possibility of closing down the lairage in Holyhead this autumn, to bear in mind the remarks made by the noble Lord concerning this problem?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I disclaim any boggling of the mind over this, but it is not a simple problem, as the noble Lord will know. We have had intensive discussions regarding the Green Pound and the question is not yet resolved though some action, perhaps of a rather more limited kind than some of us hoped for, is to be expected. One difficulty is that if we move the Green Pound there is nothing to stop

1113
our friends in the South moving theirs again, which leaves us where we were before. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I will pass on to my right honourable friend what has been said.

DUNDEE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
  SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (PORT ELLEN HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a, and passed.

  SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
  3.15 p.m.
  The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
  Clause 17 [Police]:
  Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 13, line 14, leave out from ("childbirth,") to end of line 16.
  The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friends, I beg to move this Amendment. In doing so, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, about something he said yesterday at column 1058, which reads as follows:
  "As a result of those representations, this clause was put in in another place, and nothing I have heard this afternoon would convince me that I should go back and tell
  1114
  the Department that it is quite wrong and they should reverse their decision."
  If this is the attitude which is to be taken regarding the Bill—in other words, that a Minister cannot go back to ask his Department for further advice—surely we are not going to get anywhere. I have always understood that the Minister was responsible for his Department, that he made the decisions and that the highly intelligent personnel in his Department were there to give him information and help. In the same column, I asked the Minister, "Why?" I did not get an answer, but perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me. It seems to be very unfortunate that a Minister cannot take responsibility for his own Department.
  Having said that, I should like to tell your Lordships that this Amendment is a probing Amendment. We should like to know the reasons for taking out the part which deals with pensions in respect of special constables and police cadets. This is a rather confusing clause, and it was suggested that we might put down this Amendment in order to ascertain the reasons for the differences, particularly as regards special constables. Is it because they have different duties? I understand there might be differences in pensions, but surely the police cadets must be equally treated, girls and boys. I should be grateful for the Minister's answer, and I beg to move.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Baroness was probably working on the assumption that my noble friend Lord Jacques would reply to this Amendment and therefore also to the question she put to him. All I can say in reply to what the noble Baroness has said is that I think what my noble friend was saying was that the matter had been discussed in another place and that if new arguments of significance had been put forward during the course of our debate he would have endeavoured to persuade the Department to change their decision. As I understand it, he was endeavouring to point out that the matter had been seriously considered on a number of occasions and that no new argument had been adduced.
  On the point raised on this Amendment by the noble Baroness, I agree that this is rather a complex matter and I can understand the reason for putting

  1115
  down the Amendment. There does appear to be some discrimination against police cadets and special constables. The reason they are treated differently is that so far as pension regulations are concerned they come under different Acts of Parliament. The pension regulations in respect of special constables and cadets are made under the Police Act 1964. So far as police officers and women are concerned, their pension regulations are made under the Police Pensions Act 1948. Had we not put in the subsection referred to, there would have been a most anomalous result. The situation would have been that special constables and cadets would be treated in one way for pension purposes and constables would be treated in a totally different way; so the intention of this clause—though it might not appear to be so on the face of it—is to make sure that the entire police service are treated exactly the same for pension purposes.
  Baroness VICKERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Ministers of religion etc.]:
  3.20 p.m.
  Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 14, line 40, leave out ("or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of any of its followers").
  The noble Baroness said: I realise that this Amendment is in some ways more controversial than any of the other Amendments before your Lordships, and even less a matter of Party politics than other matters we have been discussing. May I say at the outset—and I hope my reasons for saying this will be clear when I have finished—that if the Government will agree to take back this phrase and reconsider the wording I shall be happy not to divide the Committee on this issue. However, I shall find it difficult not to divide the Committee if the Government take the somewhat intransigent attitude which they took to our Amendments yesterday. In moving this Amendment, I speak as a member of the Anglican Communion and as one who was deeply disappointed at the recent Synod decision. When the matter was discussed in the
  1116
  Select Committee of your Lordships' House, it was suggested that the position in the Church was moving at such a rate that it was very likely that before long the question of the ordination of women would be resolved satisfactorily, from the point of view of those of us who have long wished to see this change come about. However, we learned only last week that this was not to be so.
  So far as the first part of Clause 19 is concerned, I would entirely support the argument that there should be no interference whatsoever through Acts of Parliament on matters of doctrine. This to me would be quite unacceptable, but it is a matter which I do not propose to pursue this afternoon in your Lordships' House. It is an old historic argument of relations between Church and State, and I know where I stand in that matter. But it is to remove the last phrase,
  "or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of any of its followers"
  that I am moving this Amendment. I realise that there are problems about ending this clause with the words, "doctrines of the religion". So far as the Anglican Church is concerned there are difficulties, because I believe—and I speak subject to correction—it is agreed inside the Anglican Church that there are no reasons of doctrine why women should not be ordained. So I assume that this clause has been added in order to continue to exempt the Church from the provisions of this Bill, when it has already admitted that there are no doctrinal reasons. It is the wording of this clause which many of us find objectionable.
  It refers to "the religious susceptibilities of any of its followers" who object to the idea of women being ordained in the Church, but it ignores not the susceptibilities but the deep convictions of a considerable number of women—and I believe also of men—that women should have the opportunity to serve in this way. I speak this afternoon for a number of women whom I know personally, who would dearly like to devote their abilities, both intellectual and spiritual, to the service of the Church and are denied the opportunity to do this in any except the most limited way. It is their conviction that they wish to serve the Church in this way; they wish to support the faith of the Church and its work and they are

  1117
  being denied this, and will continue to be denied this, for fear of upsetting the religious susceptibilities of any other members of the Church.
  I think it will be common ground among all that there is a shortage of people prepared to come forward to do the work of the Church, and it seems to us who support the ordination of women more than ridiculous—indeed, damaging to the work of the Church—that half the human race should be denied full participation in that work. We maintain that this is a conviction whose importance goes far deeper than the susceptibilities of certain individuals who may dislike the idea of seeing women in this capacity. I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the extraordinary end of this phrase,
  "offending the religious susceptibilities of any of its followers".
  How long, O Lord, how long, if we are to wait until there are no followers who object to the ordination of women!
  I was privileged by the friendship of a really remarkable woman Congregational minister, the Reverend Mary Webster, who used to recall that on one occasion when she was preaching in a church she was deprived of the assistance of the organist, because before the sermon he marched out announcing that he could not hear the Word of God preached by a woman without a hat. If we are to wait until such persons are converted, we shall wait until all eternity—and that is much too long. If the Government say that they will take back this phrase and see whether they can reword it in a way which is less extreme and less offensive to the sincere women whom the Churches now need, then I will not press this Amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
  The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWELL: I am sure your Lordships will expect me to intervene in this debate, and I should like to do so. However, I do so with one major misgiving, in that in this instance I shall appear to be speaking for the Church of England alone rather than on behalf of all the Churches. This Amendment seems to me to be trying to put the Church of England on the spot in a way that will not affect the other Churches. I am sure that the proposers of this Amendment did not intend anything
  1118
  malicious in that way; it is just working out in that way.
  If I understand the Amendment aright, it is not seeking to deny any Church the right to define its doctrine. Any major Church, having declared its mind on an issue, may be deemed to have clarified or redefined its doctrine. This Amendment seems intended to prevent a Church—if I may use that term for religious bodies of all faiths—from continuing to discriminate between the sexes because a minority claims that its religious susceptibilities are being threatened. I hope I understood aright the intention of the proposers of this Amendment as I think I do having heard the noble Baroness move it. But if I do not, it is still a fair interpretation of the Amendment to say that the consequences for the Church of England at this time would be immense. It would mean that the Church of England could be acting illegally if it maintained its present stance of refusing to ordain women for the priesthood now.
  As your Lordships are probably well aware, the Church of England has recently declared its mind on this matter. May I be allowed to spell out what it actually did. In this matter I think I can speak with some hope of sympathy from your Lordships when I say that in the debates in our General Synod I voted not only for the motion that there is no fundamental objection to the ordination of women, but also in favour of the motion that women should not be debarred from ordination now but should now be allowed to be ordained. All three Houses in the General Synod—that is, the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity—voting separately but in agreement, agreed that there is no fundamental objection to the ordination of women. It may be said, therefore, that the Church of England has redefined its doctrine. But the majority by which that decision was agreed still left a very large minority against such a view. In all 255 people voted in favour; 185 against, with 5 abstentions. That is no small minority.
  In the face of that vote we had to decide whether to go ahead; whether to overrule the feelings of so large a minority and change the practice of our Church, a practice which has been in existence from as far back as we can discover. The Church of England General Synod by its next vote did not feel that it was

  1119
  justified in being so insensitive as to overrule tender consciences to that extent. It therefore voted, by 226 votes to 184, with one abstention, not to proceed to lift the legal barriers to the ordination of women in the Church of England. As I say, although I myself voted for the lifting of the barriers, I must agree that it would hurt the Church of England greatly if at this time we were to proceed in the face of that expression of contrary opinion. In this case the General Synod echoed exactly the feelings of the Church at large as expressed in the diocesan and ruridecanal synods up and down the country.
  This leaves the Church of England in a difficult position so far as this Amendment is concerned. We have defined our doctrine as in favour of the ordination of women and we have declared ourselves in the interests of charity unready to act on that assumption. Are we then acting merely in accordance with the religious susceptibilities of our adherents rather than according to our defined doctrine? I submit that in the terms of this Amendment we may well be deemed to be doing just that. Certainly the removal of these words from the Bill leaves the Church of England unprotected. We should be acting illegally if we failed to ordain women who presented themselves for ordination and who in good faith we might feel were wholly acceptable in themselves for that ministry. I ask: does this House really want to push the Church of England along in this way? It may be said that the views of the minority in the Church of England are irrational, that they are not soundly based theologically. But they themselves believe themselves to be acting wholly conscientiously and wholly theologically; and who is to determine what are doctrinal objections and what are irrational religious susceptibilities? I can hardly think that any body of persons set up by the State would wish to be arbiter in that kind of discussion.
  This Amendment does not affect those three Churches which have already decided to accept women as ministers alongside men. It does not affect the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, or any other Church which has defined its doctrine as being such that women are unable to be ordained to the priesthood. It is only
  1120
  the Church of England which is being affected—and that because it has been courageous enough to try to change its practice. Do your Lordships really wish to treat the Church of England in this way?
  We live in times of great religious ferment. Changes are taking place in all the Churches of Christendom at a pace which a few years ago would, I believe, have been thought to be incredible. In particular, the Church of England is being accused, not of being too slow in the changes it is making, but of being too fast. Indeed, many of your Lordships may remember the debate which took place in this Chamber not so very long ago on the Church of England Worship and Doctrine Measure, where we were in a sense being urged that our changes were too fast and too far and that we were creating dangerous anxieties. I hope that this House will not push the Church of England too far and too fast. We are trying to change and are trying to take folk along with us in our changes. And I would ask this House to remember that we have the responsibility of considering not only those who go to church but those who do not and still require of us the duty of fulfilling the function of providing a religious reference for every person at each point in life. Many outside the ranks of regular worshippers are not convinced yet that they want women as their parish priests, and we must allow time for what may be regarded as no more than religious susceptibilities to change.
  Yet, having said this, what is wrong with religious susceptibilities? It is not easy to separate in the realm of religion the emotional content from the doctrinal. We are dealing here with the whole realm of support for individuals in that area of life in which they have to face the imponderables of life and death. It may be that some of our fears about life and death are irrational, but they cannot therefore be disregarded. I contend that this nation at this particular time is suffering from feeling unsupported at this very point by the fact that the Church is being attacked as irrelevant to modern man and there is no one else around to help him to whom he wishes to turn.
  The Church of England at this time has decided in its General Synod that not to act over the ordination of women at

  1121
  this time must not be a final decision. It should not be a closing of the door for the foreseeable future. We decided in Synod that the bishops must reopen the issue as soon as there is a chance of the Church's being able to accept the change that we should like to see made. We also decided that discussion should be initiated with our friends in the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Free Churches, with a view to trying to obtain agreement in moving towards the ordination of women in the whole of Christendom. In my view, it will be many years before the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church change their practice. But we in the Church of England want to be sure that in going forward as we wish to do we are not going to put up inseparable barriers between ourselves and our Roman Catholic and Orthodox co-religionists. We want to go forward with them. We want to go forward with their knowledge, with their good will, and without endangering the chance of breaking Communion with them.
  I hope that in this perhaps over-long speech I have succeeded in making clear some of the implications of this Amendment for the Church of England. Those of us who sit on these Benches are entirely behind this Bill, as I believe indeed are the majority of this Committee. We ask you to be patient with the Churches. We believe in all branches of Christendom that the ordination of women to the priesthood is a theological matter, not a matter of "women's Lib." That fact is indeed enshrined in this Bill, in that the sincere doctrinal formularies of the Church are to be respected. I hope your Lordships will allow the Churches to change without political pressure, for political pressure is what this Amendment may well be deemed to be. I know that your Lordships would not wish to presume to alter the Church's views by Act of Parliament. To alter the Church's practice by Act of Parliament at a time when contrary opinions are unresolved would, I think, be resented very strongly by Church folk.
  In the light of all this, I hope that the Committee will look very carefully at the implications of this Amendment and that it will leave the Bill as it is.
  Lord ROBBINS: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, I wonder
  1122
  whether he would give the Committee the benefit of his observation on a point which was made by the noble Baroness regarding the significance of the word "any" in the original draft of the Bill. Are we to understand that the right reverend Prelate insists, so to speak, on a liberum veto?
  The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWELL: I do not think that the Church of England would deem itself to be inhibited from ordaining women if there was a very tiny majority against it. Certainly we endeavour to conduct our affairs in line with what we feel to be the majority view as determined by our General Synod. In fact, in matters of this kind we are required to have certain majorities of voting in the different Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. It is meant to be a two-thirds majority. So there could be certain people—and not a very tiny majority—who would still perhaps be unwilling to allow the ordination of women, but who would presumably be overruled by a decision of the General Synod which voted in that kind of proportion.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Again before the right reverend Prelate sits down, with the leave of the Committee may I ask him to be good enough to amplify his indication that there were certain difficulties about breaking Communion. As I understand it, for a variety of reasons his Church disallows people to have Communion in the Church of England. Therefore, I find myself a little bewildered about his submissions in support of his argument relating to the breaking of Communion.
  The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWELL: I think that my remarks on Communion were misunderstood. The point I am seeking to make is this. At this time, to a greater and growing degree, we are endeavouring to establish relationships of Communion with our other Churches. We are not officially in Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but we do not wish to act in a way that will drive us further apart. This is the point I was trying to make and I believe your Lordships will have some sympathy with that view.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very much obliged to the right reverend Prelate.
  The Earl of ARRAN: I support this Amendment, the purpose of which, I understand, is to encourage the ordination of female ministers in the Anglican Communion. I do this for two quite simple and naïve reasons. I honestly believe—and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for generalising—that on the whole women tend to be nicer, more important and nearer to God than men. That they are gentler nobody will deny. I hope I shall not offend any of the male Members of your Lordships' House by saying this. I know the practical arguments against the ordination of women. One is that for the Anglican Church to take a line which is opposed to that of the Roman Church would hinder the cause of ecumenism. I am a strong ecumenist. About 12 years ago I had the honour of introducing a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House in which I never thought to hear Catholics and Protestants speak with such charity towards each other. It saw the beginning of the movement which, under the late Lord Fisher of Lambeth and the Holy Father, Pope John, has gained in strength and is slowly but surely crossing all barriers.
  However, at the risk of seeming controversial, should not we Anglicans have the chance to point out where we believe that our Catholic brothers may have gone astray? Is it not a fact that nuns dedicate themselves to chastity and to God? Is it wrong and demeanful that the Roman Church respects women equally with men? Should not we, for a change, show the way, in the hope that we may be followed by our friends in Rome? If asked which is the more important—Christian unity or the introduction of a practice to which one section of the Church may be opposed—I find it very hard to make up my mind. Heaven knows, there is nothing that I would regard as more evil than to hinder in any way the ecumenical movement. There are many paths to God. Who of us is to say that he or she has followed the right one?
  The second argument is that the Anglican Synod has declared itself in principle for the admission of women into the ministry and it is up to the Anglican Church to decide for itself when that moment has arrived. It has got nothing to do with Parliament. I have no wish to intervene between Church and State, but
  1124
  perhaps with appropriate humility we may attempt to expedite the business; and with due respect for the ultimate truth, which I believe to be the Christian truth, I ask your Lordships to vote in favour of the Amendment.
  Lord CLITHEROE: May I make one small point which is of direct relevance to this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, pointed out the difficulty of the word "any". If the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, were able to find words such as "a substantial number of any of its followers", or another legal phrase which means that, I think we should all be happy to agree with this Amendment. The right reverend Prelate explained the matter to us very clearly, and what we want is to find some words which mean "a substantial number".
  Lord GEORGE-BROWN: As a practising member of the Anglican Church—which I noticed was a phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, could use, but the right reverend Prelate did not seem to be able to use—it seems to me that there is no reason why the Anglican Church should take the very narrow view he put forward. Mr. Hugh Scanlon could have made the very speech which he made: "Don't take me too far; my majority is not yet big enough. Don't get me into trouble with Mr. Jack Jones; allow me to take it in my way". With great respect, I do not think that that is a very persuasive view for the Anglican Church to take. The only religious episcopal support that he has for his view is Paul. It was Saul of Tarsus who ruled it out. It was not Christ the founder. It was no other member of the original Apostles. Paul invented this much later, and the right reverend Prelate is, in fact, taking about as reactionary a stance as anybody could.
  There is no reason why women should not be ministers in the Anglican Church, and I beg the right reverend Prelate in future, if he wishes to carry me with him, to use our actual title. It may be he cannot go so far as to say "AngloCatholic", but then we are Catholics in our Church. However, if he cannot get as far as that he can at least say "Anglican". There is no reason why we in the Anglo-Catholic Church should refuse to be ministered to by women. Indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said, we are ministered to by women but

  1125
  we prefer to call them by some other name than ministers or priests. I urge upon the right reverend Prelate that there is no reason why we should go at the slowest pace of the slowest person in the Anglican Church. We have this problem in the trade union movement. I have the joy of belonging to both; I sometimes get equally fed up with them. Therefore, as an Anglo-Catholic, as a member of the Anglican Church, I fully support this Amendment and I see no good Christian or Anglican reason why he should not, except that he is among the reactionary members of our Church.
  3.51 p.m.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I think this debate is moving on too many levels. Would it not be rather better if we were to conduct the whole debate about the ordination of women on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? That in fact raises the whole problem. This is a fairly small Amendment to the clause and it is not really a debate about the ordination of women. I should be delighted to enter into such a debate with the right reverend Prelate. I think I could give him fair answers to the points he has made, although it would probably be a fairly useless task since I suspect that he could give them himself, judging by his voting record on this matter.
  What we are talking about, however, is not putting the Church of England "on the spot", which I thought was a slightly unworthy imputation of the motives of those of us who tabled this Amendment. It is not that at all; it is not the ordination of women. It is about the law of the land and the relationship of the law of the land to minority groups on this matter of the equality of the sexes. In this House, and in Parliament in general, we often distinguish between offending against the doctrines of a religious body and offending against some of the feelings of that religious body. Whether we make judgments as to whether or not those feelings are well based, we still have to make judgments about passing the law. We do it, for instance, when we are talking about Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs about treatment for children; we do it when we have to discuss the problem of Sikhs and motor
  1126
  cycle helmets; we do it when we have to discuss the problem of Sunday shop opening and Sabbatarians. These are judgments we are constantly making; there is nothing unusual about them, but we go out of our way to say that Parliament will not legislate against the doctrines of a body, although it does reserve the right to discriminate between those accretions to fundamental doctrine which have grown up and which we, in our wisdom or our folly, consider should not in fact be pandered to, to the extent of making them exceptions to the law of the land.
  We are now passing an extremely important Bill concerning the equality of women and we are endeavouring as much as possible to make it an absolutely straightforward Bill which lays down a basic overwhelming principle. In the religious field we quite rightly say that we can find an exception; that where a Church or a religion of any kind has doctrines on this matter we must not legislate against those doctrines. But it is an entirely different matter when we are dealing with something which is considerably less than doctrine and concerns a particular case. Here I do have to become particular, because it is a particular case that has been raised at this moment and is probably the main outstanding case, although I should not be surprised if there were others in other religions. But in this particular case which we are considering it has in fact just been acknowledged not to be a doctrine.
  The right reverend Prelate said that the Church of England was being attacked because it had not been courageous enough to change its practice. I imagine that was a slip of the tongue for "change its doctrine'. The right reverend Prelate is indicating that such is the case, because what the Church is being attacked for—if it is being attacked at all, and that is only incidental to the process of law-making on which we are embarked—is because it is not courageous enough to change its practice to go with its doctrine, and not courageous enough to follow the idea that I should have thought was central to all religious belief, that behaviour stems from doctrine, that morals stem from belief and that behaviour should be governed by what we believe. But as I have said, I think that is the minor point.

  1127
  I believe the major point is that it is not the doctrine of the Church of England against which we are asked to legislate. It is something far less, and if, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has suggested, it was the feeling of trade unions, or if it was of other bodies or a body less important than the Church of England—because as I have mentioned before we in fact legislate against the beliefs of Sabbatarians all the time—we should not hesitate to resist the idea that the last few lines in this clause should be taken out.
  I feel very strongly that they should be taken out, not because of my belief in the ordination of women, which is absolute, but because I do not believe that there is a case for making an exemption against a law which is good in itself and for bending the law in this way for as light a reason as this is seen to be before the general principle that we are discussing. That is the reason why I hope we shall take these words out, and at the very least I urge the Government to find some other method of phrasing them if they have to stay in, because as my noble friend Lady Seear has said, it is offensive for the law of the land to be set aside on the religious susceptibilities of any member of any Church or religion, which is what this clause, as it stands, says. It says that the general principle that we are embodying in this Bill is to be set aside because one person of any Church, of any religion, has his or her religious susceptibilities infringed. I do not think that is the way we should make laws, and I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment.
  Lord FLETCHER: I should like to intervene for a moment to say that I find myself in almost complete agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and my noble friend Lord George-Brown have said. I am a firm believer in the ordination of women and I was disappointed in the speech made by the right reverend Prelate, whom I thought put up a not very strong case against this Amendment. I would support the Amendment. My view is that it is entirely a matter for this Committee and for Parliament to decide. While your Lordships will doubtless have respect for what the General Synod has said, my view is that even if the Synod has decided that there
  1128
  is a doctrinal objection to the ordination of women, that would not have been conclusive; it would still have been open to this Committee and the duty of this Committee to express its own view upon this Amendment.
  I think this is a matter which is of far too great importance to be left to the General Synod; I think it is a matter for legislation and for legislators to decide as a matter of the law of the land. But I think in coming to a conclusion, as I hope we shall, to support this Amendment we are at least heartened by the fact that the General Synod has expressed itself sympathetic to it, in that it has decided that there is no doctrinal objection to the ordination of women, a view to which I subscribe.
  I think one of the arguments that the right reverend Prelate used in opposition to this Amendment was that he thought that if the ordination of women in the Anglican Church, of which I am a member took place, to paraphrase his words, it would be an almost insuperable objection to the cause of reunion with other Churches, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. I do not believe that for a moment. I think it is a completely fallacious doctrine. I do not think it would be an objection, let alone an insuperable objection, but even if it were, I would not regard that as a valid reason for opposing the ordination of women.
  As I understand it, if the Anglican Church decides, on doctrinal grounds, on rational grounds, on grounds based on changes taking place in society today, that the ordination of women is right, as I think it has so decided, then it is the duty of the Church of England to give effect to that opinion and not be afraid of doing so because of a fear that it might—I do not think it would—postpone reunion of the Churches. I am at least as enthusiastic about the ecumenical movement and the cause of ecumenism, and improved relationship and communion between all Christian Churches, as I am in favour of the ordination of women. I do not believe that that cause, for which I have great enthusiasm, would be in any way postponed or robbed of the impetus it is now being given if the Church of England, occupying a very special position in the theology of Christendom, as it has done for many

  1129
  years, were to take the initiative and take the courageous decision which I think it ought to take. In so far as it may be said—not on this matter but on some matters—that there is, or may be, a conflict between the Church and the State, then on matters of this kind, which may be controversial between the Church and the State, I adhere to the view that Parliament has not only the right but the duty to express its own opinion. In this case it is fortified in doing so, and in supporting this Amendment, by the fact that it is acting in accordance with a substantial majority of opinion expressed in the General Synod.
  Lord GARDINER: Perhaps somebody should remind your Lordships that the Select Committee of this House spent some little time on this. We had a Memorandum from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury pleading for exemption from the whole of the Bill for the Church of England as an employer, and we had the advantage of oral evidence from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, now the Bishop of London. I pointed out to him that this claim could not rationally be made, because, of course, the Church of England employs masses of clerks and cleaners and all sorts of people. He agreed that it was infelicitously expressed and that they really meant to confine it to the clergy. So far as the clergy are concerned, I think there was no member of the Committee who was against the appointment of women clergy. But we felt that this is a point on which people have strong religious views and therefore in our Report, to which, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was a party, we said in paragraph 103(a):
  "In all the circumstances it seemed to the Committee appropriate that the Act should not apply to priests or ministers of any denomination, nor to their training or education. This exemption should not, of course, apply to religious bodies in relation to their lay employees."
  The point I wish to raise is that this clause as drafted is extraordinarily general. I suppose the Government had some reason for departing from the simple form of clause that we suggested. It applies to "employment for purposes of an organised religion". It is in no way limited to ministers or clergy. As I read the clause, it means that if it offended the religious susceptibilities of any mem-
  1130
  ber of the Church of England to find in Church a woman organist, the Church of England would then be fully entitled in law to discriminate against women organists. Perhaps when my noble friend comes to reply he will tell us whether that is really what is intended.
  Viscount GAGE: I was for many years a member of the Joint Parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee of your Lordships' House, the object of which was to warn Parliament where its privileges were likely to be in some way affected. This seems to be the case in reverse. Parliament is now being asked to do something which greatly affects the Church. I am just wondering whether Parliament can insist on doing anything quite so drastic as this, in a matter which has been considered one of the most controversial matters to come before the Synod. Where is the process to end? Is Parliament to insist on making every kind of direction about the way in which the Church should conduct its affairs? I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right reverend Prelate said. Before this debate we have been warned that we could not give any detailed instructions in this House to nationalised industries, but apparently we can give all sorts of instruction to the Church of England as to how to conduct its affairs. I hope that at least we shall get a compromise on this matter.
  Baroness BERKELEY: I, too, should like to support the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Gage. I am wondering whether this is the time for women to be accepted as priests in the Church of England, and it is certainly not the State's part to insist on this. This is an entirely ecclesiastical affair. It has been before the Synod more than once, and they have decided it is not the time to accept women for ordination. I think it would be far better left as it is. This Bill seeks to force the, hand of the General Synod, which has decided it is not the time to accept women for ordination. If this Amendment is put to the vote, I shall certainly vote against it.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I wonder whether I may intervene at this point. I wish to do so on one of the more lowly levels of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I understand entirely why the Government have provided for an

  1131
  exception; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, explained this. I think had we been the Government we should have done the same. There are a few problems which arise out of the Amendment itself, and it might be helpful if the Committee could be told, before we finally decide what to do about it, the answers to one or two questions. First, is it right, as the right reverend Prelate said—I assume it is—that the effect of this Amendment would probably impinge only upon the Church of England, and that by doctrine rather than by religious susceptibility the other Churches would still be prevented from having ordained (or whatever the other term is) women as their priests? There are noble Lords here who are not solely concerned with the Church of England, and we should like to know whether, by leaving out the words that the noble Baroness is talking about, we still provide adequate protection on doctrinal grounds to other Churches.
  The second point that worries me, and I hope that this is not just a matter of words, is this. This clause applies to women organists, cleaners, clerks in the diocese offices, and goodness knows who else in any other religion, and I am worried about an even more fundamental point, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be able to answer on this. What is exempted here is employment, and that is defined in this Bill at Clause 77, where it says:
  "'employment' means employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour …".
  I know that the context may otherwise require, and that this may be a case of it, but I have been having a whispered conversation with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and he thinks that upon ordination ministers in the Church of Scotland are certainly not employed by the Church of Scotland. I strongly suspect that at the stage of ordination people are not employed by the Church of England either, in which case this clause does not bite at all upon the situation which the Committee has been talking about, and we shall have the whole question raised in front of an industrial tribunal or a county court. It is fundamental to know whether "employment" includes ordination. That is the first stage.
  1132
  I do not suppose it very much matters which religion or branch of the Church we are talking about, but does "employment" include the appointment to a living, or whatever the equivalent is in some other religion? I do not think—though I am subject to correction on this—that anybody employs the rector in my village. I believe he pays self-employed National Insurance stamps. Certainly, at the moment, the patron appoints him to the living, and the parochial church council has a certain amount of influence on what he does, although not perhaps very much, but I do not believe that anybody employs him. Therefore, if we come to the stage when the Church of England—and I talk about that for the moment—decides that women may be ordained, will it still not be possible for a parochial church council or a patron who takes a strong line on the religious susceptibilities, to say, "No, this woman shall not come to this living," and will the exemption in this clause still not cover that situation because it is not a matter of employment?
  If that is right, and I do not know whether or not it is, then the Amendment does not begin to affect the fundamental question that the noble Baroness intended to get at and at which the whole debate has been directed. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would deal with this. I appreciate that it might be just a nasty legal quibble, but if I am right there is a fundamental flaw in the whole clause and in the exception that is intended to be created by it.
  4.14 p.m.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not think anyone who has heard this debate will doubt that this is an important question which has divided Members of your Lordships' House who are members of the same church. This was emphasised by the speeches of the right reverend Prelate and of my noble friends Lord George-Brown and Lord Fletcher. I would first talk about the substance of the matter which is being discussed, and then about some of the questions of phraseology. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would concede, what we are discussing here is a question not of phraseology but of substance. On one aspect of the matter I hope I shall be able to meet her—that is a point which

  1133
  has been touched on in a number of speeches this afternoon—and that is on the use of the word "any".
  On the central question, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked about the position of Churches other than the Church of England. I think that he was right. I do not believe that this would simply bite on the Anglican Church for a reason which I shall explain in a moment. In my view, the Amendment could lead to a situation which affected not only the Church of England but the Roman Catholic Church, and certainly the Moslem and Sikh religions, which is not a point of unimportance given the substantial other religious communities we now have in this country. We now have to recognise the importance of this issue to supporters of those faiths. I think that all these churches could well be affected if the Amendment were carried this afternoon, and I say that for reasons which I shall explain.
  Before coming to the precise way in which this matter would be tested, I should say that it is recognised, both in the Western World in particular and in general, that people should be allowed to practise their religion freely and in their own way. This is, after all, enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is important to recognise that fact. It is important when discussing this whole issue to look at the practical effect of carrying this Amendment this afternoon, and this comes to the point which the noble Viscount raised a moment ago. If the Amendment were carried, the question to be determined would simply be: what is the doctrine of the religion?
  But in many Churches there is debate not only on what the doctrine should be but on what the doctrine is, and it is this area which would have to be discussed. But by what sort of organisation? Would it be discussed by an industrial tribunal? There are many places where matters of religious doctrine should be debated and adjudicated upon, but it was not until this afternoon that it occurred to me that the most appropriate way of examining this issue is before an industrial tribunal. I must emphasise that if this Amendment were carried that would inevitably be the effect. The tribunal would have to decide on the central doctrinal issue. There would be debate before the tribunal in certain circumstances, and not just, as
  1134
  the noble Viscount rightly said, by members of the Anglican Communion; there could be, at some stage in the future, minority and majority opinions in the Roman Catholic Church, and certainly in the Moslem and Sikh religions and in other religions. It does not seem to me that this is the right way of approaching this general question.
  The clause as drafted would require a person claiming benefit of the exception to establish that any discriminatory action was taken to avoid giving offence to the religious susceptibilities of the people concerned; normally, those members of a particular church, chapel, or temple. But I freely concede—and this point was made by a number of speakers this afternoon and was touched on by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, although he was making a slightly different point—that some part of the phraseology of this clause is not necessarily in the most perfect possible condition.
  I should certainly like to look at the point raised by the noble Viscount at the end of his speech. He will not be surprised that I should like to look at this matter rather carefully. In any event, we should want to look at the use of the word "any", because I take the point that this could lead to an unfortunate development in the situation. As my noble and learned friend acknowledged, it is extremely difficult to get this precise formulation right. We shall look at the matter carefully, but I must make it wholly clear that in so doing I could not agree to the substance of the argument developed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. But before Report we will consider the narrower question of the precise way in which the matter should be put in the clause.
  Lord KINNAIRD: I am not an authority on Church matters, nor an authority on women. I am not against women, and I do not wish to discriminate against them in any way. But if women are ordained to the priesthood, I think it will follow that sooner or later they will want to be given a parish. What would the parishioners then do when one child after another appeared on the scene? Would they have to go to the neighbouring parish to find a priest to carry out the necessary duties, or would the parish have to pay for another priest to come into the parish? What would be the situation?
  Baroness SUMMERSKILL: Has the noble Lord considered the fact that women doctors also have children, yet somehow they manage? It is a curious thing that you can be consulted, and still be a mother, and give excellent advice.
  Lord KINNAIRD: With all due respect to the noble Baroness, where Holy Communion can be given only by ordained priests, it might not be easy to whistle up a priest from another parish which, in a country area, might be 10 miles away.
  Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I think that they will arrange that all right, once we get in.
  Baroness SEEAR: I am sure it will be agreed that we have had a useful debate which has revealed that there are points in this whole clause which need further examination. I gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, that he is prepared to look at the clause again, although he does not agree with the main substance of what I have been saying. A number of points raised this afternoon will give him cause to think, and in view of the useful exploration of the whole matter and the Minister's promise to look at the whole clause, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  4.23 p.m.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 20:
  After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
  Universities
  Nothing in this Part applies to employment for purposes of the college or hall of a university where the employment is limited to women as so to preserve and to increase the opportunities for employment open to women.
  The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lady Young is the expert on this subject. From having read the debate on a similar Amendment in another place, I am vaguely aware of what the subject matter is, but I am greatly sustained by noting Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—I think I am referring to the correct Amendment—to which she will no doubt be speaking in due course. Since my noble friend Lady Young has had to
  1136
  leave the Committee for the moment, would it be acceptable to the Committee if I were to move this Amendment formally, and then invite the noble Baroness to make a speech on the subject, since it is also the subject matter of one of her own Amendments? I beg to move.
  Baroness SEEAR: I wish to give a very brief explanation. This Amendment and Amendment No. 26 deal with the same problem. It concerns the situation which arises in the interim period when a single-sex college is going over to catering for both sexes. If when a single-sex college is taking in members of the other sex—and is permitted so to do because this is allowed in the legislation—if it is not at the same time permitted that it should discriminate in favour of the minority sex in terms of members of the staff, then there will be an imbalance in the teaching staff in that institution, which having previously been single-sex ceases to be single-sex.
  As I am sure a number of your Lordships will be aware, this situation has arisen particularly in connection with the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. If a Cambridge college, which has previously been exclusively a male college, begins to take in young women undergraduates but is not permitted to discriminate in favour of women in the matter of fellowships and members of the staff, then it is highly probable that the college will have women students in increasing numbers but that the staff will not similarly comprise members of both sexes. It is suggested that this exception—and it is an exception—should be granted only for the interim period, while the college is building up its staff in line with its new responsibilities; otherwise the situation will act very adversely in relation to both the staffing of a college and the position of women seeking fellowships.
  The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): Although the noble Baroness has dealt in effect with two clauses, I wish to deal at the moment with Amendment No. 20. The White Paper published last September was called Equality for Women, and this is what we are concerned with in this

  1137
  Bill. Our aim in the field of employment is that a woman should not be discriminated against because she is a woman. A candidate for a post should be considered on his, or her, merits, and the best candidate should get the post, irrespective of sex. This is the basic point of principle. We are not attempting to legislate that there should be discrimination in favour of women when candidates are being considered for a post. Yet this essentially is what the new clause is aiming to do.
  At the end of 1972 (the last date for which published figures are available) the full-time teaching and research staff in universities comprised nearly 4,000 women and about 32,000 men. We should all obviously wish to see the number of women increased, but it is questionable whether the cause of better opportunities for women is served by protective legislation. Particularly in the university field, I should have thought that most women would prefer to be able to say, "I got the post because I was the best candidate", than to say, "I got the post not because I was the best candidate, but because I was a woman". I accept that it is desirable that a single-sex college going co-residential, or co-educational, which also has a single-sex staff, should recruit some members of staff of the opposite sex. Clause 7(e) of the Bill makes this possible because it is a genuine occupational qualification where,
  "the holder of the job provides individuals with personal services promoting their welfare or education, or similar personal services, and those services can most effectively be provided by a man".
  In the context of that clause for "man" we should alternatively read "woman". I am confident that under this clause the appointment of women tutors to the stall of a college which has previously been a man's college would be possible. But the Government cannot accept that, as is intended under the new clause, there should be discrimination in favour of women so long as the college considered this was necessary, as the new clause says,
  to preserve and to increase the opportunities for employment open to women".
  Where does one stop—when half the staff are women? Any form of quota of this kind would be out of keeping with the spirit of the Bill which, I repeat, is concerned with equal opportunities.
  1138
  The clause applies to colleges and halls of universities, but if the principle were accepted, what is the logical reason for confining the exception here proposed to universities? If it was extended to professions or areas of employment where women were in a minority, then a coach and horses would be driven through the Bill.
  Finally, I regard the clause as drafted as defeatist, and this is a surprising attitude for the exceptionally gifted and able women who teach in universities. It is from the light blues that this clause has originated, and three colleges in Cambridge are already co-residential and four more plan to become so by 1978. But under the Bill, the remaining 17 men's colleges will, in the appointment of staff, not be permitted to discriminate against women. The opportunities for women should therefore be increased, not diminished, and it is for women to seize those opportunities. In view of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared, on behalf of the noble Baroness, to withdraw the Amendment.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My noble friend has advanced a very convincing argument against this clause. I am never really certain whether when an argument is convincing it should be regarded as correct. I have had great difficulty over many years in universities—and not in one but in many—in dealing with the whole problem of recruiting women on to the staff. It is a very difficult problem because it is quite easy to say that we treat them all in exactly the same way but, the moment we do so, we almost invariably discriminate against women.
  In my own subject of chemistry, if one has a woman who is a good chemist, who is well trained and who is working in the university and that woman has a child or two or three children, that means that time has necessarily been lost by that woman from her purely academic work. In consequence, when it comes to seeking new employment it will turn out that she will apply for a position and it will be found that she has not published as much original work as the man who has not been so distracted, if I may put it like that. If one likes to say so, she has been forced to do some other duty. In consequence, the selection committee will, with the best will in the world, when looking at the short list in front of it, choose

  1139
  the man. I have frequently wanted to recruit women on to the staff of my department—a chemistry department—but in the whole of my active university life I succeeded in recruiting only three because it was extremely difficult to get women who had the qualifications in terms of their active research work.
  If we do not allow a certain degree of positive discrimination in favour of women, I believe that any sex discrimination legislation will be discriminatory and that it will discriminate against women. I am quite sure that, if one throws tile whole position absolutely open, a college, which started by being a women's college and which recruited a number of women who did perfectly good work though they were not perhaps all of them absolutely outstanding in achievement in their subjects because they had other duties, would, if it were turned into one which was open to both men and women and if it were laid down that there must be no discrimination at all, end with a majority of male staff. There is at least one institution in the University of London in which this has already occurred.
  I feel that we should be extremely careful about this. I believe that there should be, at least for a certain period of settling down, some right to discriminate in favour of women. Otherwise, I believe we shall be discriminating against women.
  Lord ROBERTHALL: I want to say only a few words on this point. I have had a little experience in this field and I feel that it would not be at all a kindness to women to discriminate in their favour in this field. In the old days, a great many people who went to universities did not care what sort of degree they got or whether they got a degree at all. Nowadays, the competition is very intense and it is embarrassing to be—as I have been—head of a college and to have the undergraduates saying that the tutor is not up to his work and that they want to be sent to someone else. I do not say that all men tutors are good or that all women tutors are bad, but it just seems to me that it would be unfortunate to give a handle to people to say that there has been discrimination here in favour of women and thus expose them—as I believe they would be exposed—to this unpleasant
  1140
  experience of having their own people asking to go to someone else.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: The whole question of positive discrimination raised in this debate is fascinating. It has really been the object of most of the people responsible for the Bill that we should try to produce as little discrimination either way as possible as an end result. I believe that, though positive discrimination in legislation is sometimes necessary, it is so only on behalf of the really powerless and the very inarticulate. However, there is a case for positive discrimination during transitional periods. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, appeared to be speaking on the general problem during most of his speech, but towards the end he came down to the transitional point. Amendment No. 26 in the names of my noble friends and myself deals specifically with transitional periods in educational establishments, and I hope that the Government will look with favour upon it. The present Amendment, on the other hand, although it may be meant to deal with the transitional situation, does not say so. It goes a very great deal wider.
  I wonder whether the best thing would not be for the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if what they really want to achieve is positive discrimination during the transition period, to withdraw the Amendment at this stage and wait to see what happens to Amendment No. 26 when it comes before the Committee. When they know what the Government and your Lordships feel about it and if it gets anything of a fair wind, a similar Amendment could be put down on Report stage dealing with this sector and limited to transitional periods. That seems to me a possible way of approaching this problem.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am inviting the noble Baroness to put any views which she may have to the Committee, but certainly, for my part, what I should like to do is to think about this and to discuss it with my noble friend Lady Young. Indeed, if we are to have another short debate on Amendment No. 26, what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has suggested will come to pass, so at this stage I feel that the best course is to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 [Midwives]:
  4.40 p.m.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 15, line 6, at beginning insert—
  ("The Secretary of State may by order provide for the coming into operation of the following amendments to the Midwives Act 1951 and the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951—")
  The noble Viscount said: This subject has been controversial right the way through this Bill, and indeed it was controversial in the consultative documents beforehand. It think it is the only area in the Bill that directly concerns the Department of Health and Social Security and it is therefore right that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, should reply. There are two rather irreconcilable points of view which one has to consider on this matter. First, I have a considerable amount of sympathy for those who want to state in the Bill as a matter of principle that they wish to get rid of discrimination either way, wherever it can be found in the Statute Law.
  Secondly, I have discovered by listening to some discussions with midwives, by reading correspondence that has been sent to me and to other Members of this House and, of course, by reading the Official Reports of debates in another place, that there are those who say that although one day it might be right to allow male midwives to carry out some or all of the roles that female midwives alone are now allowed to do, this is not yet the moment. To decide how to handle this in the Bill has caused a good deal of difficulty. This subject has a chequered history, because at one stage an Amendment was carried in another place, but it was put right from the Government's point of view on Report. I am not seeking to deal with this in a definite way, one way or another; I am trying to suggest to the Committee that there might be a sensible compromise.
  I think it is right to say—and the profession of midwives would probably agree with me—that the day will come when some, at any rate, of the duties of the midwife can acceptably be carried out by men. I do not know whether all of them can be, and I shall come to this later, but we should certainly not turn our backs on the possibility that men will do this sort of job one day with perfect
  1142
  acceptance from the public and with perfect decorum, as one would expect. I hasten to dissociate myself from certain criticisms which I have found in correspondence about the standards of male nurses. I do not think this debate should turn for one instant on the standards of male nurses, or indeed of any nurses, because those who carry out these tasks would, I am certain, be properly trained and entirely fitted to do the tasks allotted to them. So I immediately disclaim that ground.
  What I do find, however, is that there are specific parts of the job of a midwife which some women—and I say humbly that I understand why they take this view—object to men doing. From the statistics I have seen—a number of surveys have been carried out, one by the community health councils—I think that fewer women would actually object to a man carrying out the delivery of the baby. What a large number of them object to—and, incidentally, they say their husbands feel likewise—is men instructing them in some of the particularly intimate antenatal and post-natal exercises that midwives customarily do, whether in hospital or at home. It seems to me, from what little information I have to enable me to form a judgment, that the time is not yet ripe for men to do this sort of thing—at any rate, for a large number of women who would be very seriously offended and upset, at a time when, in my view, they should be particularly carefully treated.
  What does one do about this? In another place the Government said that a woman should be given freedom of choice. The corollary of that must be that there will be only a limited number of geographical areas where it will be possible, even if the Bill were implemented in its present form, where men could perform some or all of the jobs of a midwife, because when they do these jobs they have to be chaperoned, for reasons which the Committee will understand; for the patient's protection and, indeed, for their own protection, too. They have to chaperoned and that means there has to be more than one midwife available, and there are only a limited number of places, presumably in the larger centres of population, where one can always guarantee to have more than one midwife on the strength at any time to deal with an emergency.
  There is also the difficulty that if one has a male midwife and is really going to allow freedom of choice, one must also provide a female midwife to be on duty all the time as well, because there may be a woman who genuinely would not like the operation or treatment or whatever it is to be carried out by a man, and to give her genuine freedom of choice there must be one of each sex available to carry out these duties. If this is to be implemented now, it will involve considerable extra resources in the National Health Service at a time when—and I have read the correspondence with the right honourable lady the Secretary of State—the NHS is strained in financial terms.
  Let me suppose that it is fairly widely accepted that one day these restrictions, which allow women alone to carry out these duties, may be able to be relaxed. In that case, let us say so as a matter of principle in this Bill. It is the principles that we wish to establish; the exceptions are dangerous and we wish to reduce the number of exceptions as far as possible. But if neither the resources allow, nor a large number of women wish, the full range of duties to be carried out by men—or, indeed, in some cases, any of the duties to be carried out by men—then let us adopt the same sort of approach to this issue as appears elsewhere in the Bill.
  The Factories Acts have been widely quoted and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has a particular interest in this matter. In this Bill, the Government are not taking a decision about these Acts. They say that there is power by regulation under the Health and Safety at Work Act to deal with these by Statutory Instrument, after the Equal Opportunities Commission and anybody else concerned has decided whether or not they should be repealed. There is protective legislation giving special protection to women.
  It occurs to me, therefore, that instead of taking a black or white decision on this issue today, we may enshrine in the Bill the principle which I believe the Government want, but use the device, which they themselves are adopting elsewhere in this legislation, of giving them leave to bring in these amendments by legislation at such time as they think fit. That is provided for in my Amendment, but in case there is any doubt about it I have a
  1144
  consequential Amendment to Clause 75, Amendment No. 72, which provides that the Government—I suppose the Department of Health and Social Security—can bring in regulations requiring an Affirmative Resolution in order to implement this change when they think the time is ripe, from the attitudinal point of view and from the financial and organisational points of view.
  I commend this to the Committee as being a middle course in a subject which has caused a good deal of dismay and difficulty. It means to say that we can have a principle that a number of us would like to see, but can nevertheless take account of the practical difficulties and the views of people who are opposed to it, and therefore postpone the coming into operation of this reform until the Government of the day think the time is really ripe.
  Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I rise—
  Baroness GAITSKELL: Perhaps my noble friend Lady Summerskill will for once permit me to speak before her. I appreciate that she is an expert on the subject while I am an ordinary person, a woman who would have to choose whether she would like a male midwife or a male gynaecologist, or a woman midwife or a woman gynaecologist. People seem to take a more irrational attitude to this than to practically any other problem, for it is exactly the same. One has exactly the same feelings. If a woman does not like a woman doctor then she tries to choose a male doctor, and if a woman prefers to go to a woman doctor then nothing can stop her. I should like to know the figures but I imagine that there are more male gynaecologists delivering babies than women gynaecologists because there are probably more male than women gynaecologists. As for this rather prissy attitude we take about delivery, the problems of it, the way children are delivered and the way the midwife has to deal with her patient before the delivery, despite the objections that people have about delivery and about the way the midwife looks after the woman, there are very few differences. If you think that there are unpleasant or sensitive areas, I must say that they are there in both cases, for the midwife and for the gynaecologist. I can see no reason, except a reactionary one, for

  1145
  women not coming to prefer male midwives rather than objecting to them.
  Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I am quite sure the Committee will think I have risen to support the principle of the Bill, the principle which is well known to you all; that is, that men and women should have equal opportunities and also receive equal treatment in certain fields. I have considered this position for some time because I realise what happened in the other place. There was a change of mind there. Let us accept the fact that men and women there are equally knowledgeable with us; that they are men and women of common sense who have given great thought to this matter They have changed their minds, which is always commendable. I have given great thought to this and for many years I have worked in this world of women, of sick women, of pregnant women, of obstetricians and gynaecologists and so on. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will be surprised to hear that I agree with him. I think that he has adopted the right attitude.
  I have received a number of letters on this Bill but most of them have been concerned with this particular matter. The very last one I collected in the Lobby this afternoon and it is one that I shall read to you because it is written by a sensible woman, and she puts the case as she sees it and as women like her see it. She says:
  "I wonder if I could gain your support to vote against the introduction of male midwives in the debate in the House this week by telling you of my own experience. The trainee male nurse who came to my room before the baby's birth had worked with me in an office in town before he had taken up nursing and he is a near neighbour. He was embarrassed w hen he saw me and"—
  I do not know what this means—
  "unprofessional enough to deal with the situation. When I spoke to my husband about him, he was horrified to think that in the future a young boy—we are both near 40—could shave me, give me an enema, instruct me on breast feeding, including expressing milk, give me a bed pan, supply me with maternity pads, inspect stitches after the birth and remove the stitches. The presence of a man at the birth is of no consequence at all. The King and Queen could be there and I am sure that the mother concerned would not notice. But before and after the birth when a woman is so emotional and acutely aware of embarrassing situations, the presence of young men with whom one would not trust a flea is completely alien to all the decencies of life. This is not a case of sex discrimination in the true sense
  1146
  for the most adamant expressions of revulsion have come from husbands I have spoken to who were appalled at the thought of their wives being handled by other men. Doctors do none of the things midwives do and come into a different category. I feel that if more women knew what was being foisted on to them you would receive many more letters."
  Indeed I have! This woman is quite right in giving all those details associated with maternity. There are the pre-natal examinations. You could say that they are done by male GPs; but male GPs never do any of these other things. They never sit patiently by the woman's side, as good nurses should, showing her how to breast-feed her child, how to handle her nipples properly and how to express milk, as this women describes. On this detail, I rather fear that we shall have some young male midwives who themselves feel some embarrassment when all this is going on in the upstairs room in a working class home and the husband sitting probably downstairs in the kitchen. If the nurses do these jobs properly as they should be done, it requires much time, much perseverance and much patience. Therefore I have this picture before me. I have seen it operating in many working class homes where the nurse is teaching a young mother how to handle the baby and these other matters and dealing with her in the intimate fashion that this woman graphically describes. I must agree with the noble Viscount that the time may come when the equality of the sexes is such that this will be feasible; but I think it is impractical now.
  We are told there will be a chaperon. It will be really ludicrous to have a woman nurse to chaperon every male nurse who goes into the upstairs room of the woman. The chaperon will sit there (and presumably she will be a nurse, another midwife) while a man sits by the bed teaching the woman how to express her milk and so on. The picture is ludicrous. It is a little pathetic to think that that kind of scene may be enacted because the unfortunate woman is absolutely helpless and she will lie there, upset and longing to say to the chaperon, "Can you not look after me instead of letting this young man do it while you are sitting in the chair watching him?" What is the chaperon going to be there for? Is it to ensure that the male midwife does not behave in an unprofessional manner? I presume that is what the chaperon is

  1147
  for; or is she to be there in order to try to lessen the embarrassment of the patient? What a terrible waste of money. It really means that we shall be paying twice the sum for a confinement that we paid before male midwives and chaperons were needed.
  Therefore I feel—and I put it as kindly as this—that the time has not yet come when we can accept this. I am sorry but I will have to go into the Lobby against the Government if this is pressed to a Division.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: May I ask one question? My noble friend said the husband would object to a young male midwife. Would the husband object to an old man midwife or an older man midwife?
  Baroness SUMMERSKILL: Knowing men, I think the husband would object to old men as well as young ones.
  Lord LEATHERLAND: Speaking as one of the old men, I have an interest in this question. I find myself—and we are having a non-Party debate—very much in harmony with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I had intended to speak outright against the employment of male midwives but I shall be content with supporting his Amendment; that is to say, to shelve the question until there has been more consideration. I want to deal with this question objectively and not emotionally. At the age of 77, perhaps it may be said that I can deal with this in the spirit of objectivity. I have an interest in this matter as well. Long ago, when I lived in my little Essex village, I was president of the district nursing association where we employed a nurse/midwife to cover a vast area, and I was partly responsible for the administration of her affairs. I know that midwives have to be sent out in moments of emergency. You cannot always detail for a particular confinement the midwife who had originally been assigned to the job, and so it may well be that whereas a woman midwife had been dealing with the patient during the course of the pregnancy, during the last few months a man has to be sent out because he is the only one left on the duty rota.
  Powerful voices have been raised against this proposal to legalise the
  1148
  employment of male midwives. The Royal College of Midwives, the Community Health Councils, the Area Health Authorities, the Royal College of Gynaecologists and the Association of Supervisors of Midwives have spoken out clearly against it. The British Medical Association have also had some serious reservations. It is generally accepted—and I have been assured it is the fact by midwives who are today practising—that most women prefer to have a woman midwife. It is certainly the fact that most husbands prefer their wives to have a woman midwife and not a male midwife. My noble friend Lady Gaitskell spoke about male gynaecologists. Surely we must accept the fact that gynaecologists are on a very much higher professional level than midwives, and whereas one might not have complete trust in a male midwife, one can have complete professional trust in a male gynaecologist; anyhow, it is usually the midwife who does the work even if the gynaecologist is present. The Minister in the other place said women would have the choice of accepting the services of a male midwife or female midwife; but they will not always get that choice, they will probably have to take the particular midwife who happens to be on duty at the time on that day.
  It has been pointed out that we are dealing with a very delicate problem. I want to make one thing clear regarding the delivery of the child. Nobody has any objection, the College of Midwives has no objection, to a male midwife officiating at the actual delivery of the child. The College of Midwives has suggested that male nurses should have a month's training in the delivery of infants so that they can deal with emergency or even non-emergency cases. Similar training is also given to many policemen, ambulance drivers and attendants. The actual delivery of the child is something quite apart from the general question. The nine months before the birth, and the few months afterwards is the period with which we have to deal.
  In the course of the nine months before the birth the midwife has to make periodical examinations of the patient. This, if I might use non-technical language, involves a good deal of mauling about. There are many women who would not like that to be done by a man, and many

  1149
  husbands who would not like to hear of a man examining their wives in those circumstances. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, there is the post-natal period when all kinds of intimate performances have to be gone through. The woman has to be taught how to breast feed her baby and I am old-fashioned enough to think that that is a job more for a woman than for a man. There are half a million women who need midwifery treatment in their homes. This is not necessarily for the actual delivery—many of them go into hospital for that. The Minister says that he will not depute male midwives to carry on this domiciliary treatment; but he cannot always guarantee it. As I said, the next midwife on duty might be a man. The female midwives in that area may be miles away dealing with extremely urgent cases.
  Even if the Minister says the male midwives shall not be allowed to deal with domiciliary cases, this is contradictory and looks like a case of discrimination against male midwives. We have been told that male midwives will perform their duties in hospitals and not in the homes of patients. As my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said, these men have to be protected against charges, either real or false, of impropriety. We know that women at that time of life are subject to very fanciful fantasies. It may be that many male midwives will be unjustly accused of impropriety when no such impropriety has occurred. The Minister has said that a chaperone will be present in all those cases. As my noble friend pointed out, and as I intended to point out, this will merely double the cost at a time when the National Health Service is starved of money. It may be said that I am arguing in favour of discrimination, but discrimination is there already. It has been put there by a far higher power than this House: women become pregnant, men do not, and I think this particular job is one for women and not for men.
  5.5 p.m.
  Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his Amendment. Like other Members of the Committee, I have been written to by a number of people and particularly I speak for the College of Midwives in Scotland who are deeply concerned about this, and who
  1150
  hold the same views as the College of Midwives in England and the other organisations that have been spoken about today. I also have with me an article which other noble Lords may have seen which reflects a poll taken on midwives by the Royal College and which gives the answers, "Yes" and, "No" and, "Undecided" on the subject of introducing male midwives into the Service. The figures are overwhelmingly against.
  We were talking on another Amendment about the vote of the General Synod of the Church of England and the fact that in their vote on the ordination of women they had a large, but not overwhelming, number of people against. The majority were in favour and so they postponed the decision. Today there is an overwhelming majority among those in the nursing, surgical and other professions and ordinary people, for whom midwifery is a vital part in their lives, against male midwives. I hope very much that if the Government are not prepared to accept Lord Colville's Amendment, he will put that to a vote, and we shall vote in favour of it. It certainly represents the views of a large proportion of people involved.
  5.9 p.m.
  Baroness PHILLIPS: I should like to support the noble Viscount's Amendment. It is always very unfortunate that if one expresses a point of view slightly different from the current trend of the time one is accused of being reactionary. This weekend I attended a conference of some 600 women, and I should like to take up the point about the freedom of choice. They were discussing the increasing practice of the induction of labour, about which they had very strong views. It was pointed out that they have a choice. But it was equally indicative that very few of the patients realised that they had a choice in this matter. As has been said, a pregnant woman is already in a slightly emotional state, and when she gets to the point of being in hospital she is not very conscious of the fact that she has certain rights which she can exercise.
  Therefore, I think the idea that women would have a choice is a fallacious one. It has been indicated, very rightly, that if we are talking about midwives coming into the patient's home, it is highly unlikely that at the time when the midwife is needed the woman would be able

  1151
  to say, "I don't want a man; I want a woman. "They would simply say, "I'm afraid, my dear, you must have the only one that is available." This presupposes that we have a much larger staff than we know in fact is there. Equally, I would agree with my noble friend about this total piece of nonsense over having a chaperon. What are the qualifications of the chaperon? We seem to be moving backwards if we are going to have that sort of thing. I would say to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that it is true there are a number of male gynaecologists, but it is equally true that if you talk to women you are left in no doubt that if they are given a choice they would in most cases prefer a woman. But there are not many women gynaecologists, so again we come back to the question of how valid is the choice.
  The right reverend Prelate, speaking on another Amendment, said that even if fears are irrational they should be taken note of. I think we have to take note of the fact that the employers, as has already been mentioned, have certain reservations, and also that the majority of Area Health Councils are against this. The consumers, if one may thus describe patients—and I have talked to a tremendous number of them—are not yet in favour of it. It may be that we are moving a little too quickly, but I would say to your Lordships that we have in this Bill certain other areas where we have been considering feelings. For example, I believe we are going to consider not sending women down the mines, and that we still have outstanding the question of lavatory attendants who are, of course, not quite so important. So it seems we have room for manoeuvre. I would say that the duties which have been outlined so clearly by my noble friend regarding ante-natal and post-natal attendance are totally different from what is involved in the delivery of children. There is no real relevance there. One day the position may change, but I do not think this is the moment, and I hope we shall not ride roughshod over the feelings of so many people who have written to me and who have also, as we have heard, written to others of your Lordships. In addition, I have talked to many women who feel that there are times when the legislators seem to be legislating for something
  1152
  which they themselves do not have to undergo. I feel that in this matter we must exercise a certain measure of acceptance that this may not be quite the moment when the position can be accepted. I would fully support the Amendment.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I would strongly support the Amendment but should like very briefly to say that we should in no way deride male nurses, because they are doing a remarkably fine job in their field. But, as many speakers have indicated, we are in a very delicate and sensitive field. We have all been given statistics and we have all tried to get our own. I have with me the report of a local working party of nurses who got together to discuss mutual problems, and perhaps I might quote from it. It said:
  "Arising from discussions, it would appear that the main wish of the male nurse is that they could obtain an adequate knowledge of obstetrics. It would appear that in the main they do not wish to follow this by practising midwifery. The working group therefore came to the conclusion that they would support the policy of providing some obstetric training for male nurses, but could not at this moment agree to a policy which would mean employing male midwives."
  Perhaps we would all support the training of male nurses in obstetrics, because many first-aiders, policemen and so on are called upon to deliver babies in emergencies, and there is nothing wrong with that.
  But speaking, like the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, not as a medical practitioner but as a father and parent, one knows that over the years when the child was on the way and after the child was born there were periods of extreme sensitivity, when the husband had to be extremely careful about how he acted and what he said. That is an indication of some psychological effect, and the employment of male midwives without any precaution whatever could give rise to some serious situations in the Health Service, where we now have some great problems of complaints about the treatment of patients. This could set the ball rolling in a field where I do not think we should rush in. I not only commend the Amendment, but I commend the noble Viscount and those who have advised him on the common-sense way in

  1153
  which the arguments have been prepared and put forward.
  Lord SEGAL: I feel that this discussion ought not to be allowed to close without some plea being made on behalf of the trained male midwife, who is of unquestioned probity and integrity when attending not only the actual birth of a child, but the pre-natal and post-natal stages as well. I accept a great many of the arguments put forward in this discussion. I am sorry that to some extent they may have been somewhat one-sided; but just as you have a male gynæcologist and obstetrician who inspires complete confidence in the mother at all stages of her confinement, we ought to accept the fact that there can be trained male midwives of unexceptionable integrity and devotion, who have the capacity for inspiring complete confidence in a mother at all stages of her confinement.
  I do not want to elaborate the argument because the discussion has already gone on long enough. But let us leave the door wide open so that perhaps, not at the present moment, but in the not unforeseeable future, we shall be able to give an opportunity to this type of male midwife who, in the course of time, when his reputation becomes known—and in cases where there may be a local shortage of female midwives—should not be denied the opportunity of pursuing his rightful occupation.
  Lord LEATHERLAND: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point? He said that there are many trained male midwives, but are there? Because if there are, why does the Bill say that Clause 20 removes the statutory requirement that the midwife must be a woman?
  Lord SEGAL: All I can say to my noble friend is that if there are not at present these midwives, I hope there soon will be.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: May I say just two sentences before my noble friend replies? We have heard a great many statements today which are completely unproven. Anyone can come along and say, "I know that women don't and won't want a male midwife. "We have no proof of this whatever, except from groups who do not want to accept this because it would affect their interests.
  1154
  My noble friend Lady Summerskill gave us all the grisly details of what leads up to the delivery of a child. She did not go into the details of the actual delivery, which are just as sensitive and about which people are just as squeamish. In fact, men are entirely squeamish about the whole question of delivery and of the whole thing with regard to women, and really they should not be taken any notice of.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, for the very balanced way in which he put his arguments. It is something which we have come to expect of him, and we were not disappointed. I should like to remind your Lordships that we are discussing the Sex Discrimination Bill. Let us not forget that this is a Bill which is aimed at removing sex discrimination. Ever since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House my noble friend Lady Summerskill has complained about discrimination against women. We are now dealing with one specific factor relating to discrimination against men, and I think we ought to keep this in the forefront of our minds if we are going to make a balanced decision following, if I may say so, some very balanced argument.
  As I understand the situation, Clause 20(4) and (5), together with certain repeals in Schedule 6, seek to remove the statutory prohibition on a man becoming a midwife. If I undestand the purpose of the Amendment to Clause 20 and the insertion of a new paragraph (d) in subsection (1) of Clause 75, it is to require that the removal of this prohibition shall come into force only following an Order made by the Secretary of State and subject to an Affirmative Resolution. The principle apparently is not being challenged, and if I may say so with the greatest respect it is the principle that we are now concerned with. If the noble Viscount will allow me, perhaps it will be convenient to deal now with both these matters, Clauses 20 and 75, at the same time. I recognise that the question of whether the statutory prohibition on men becoming midwives should be removed is a sensitive and—as is quite obvious from what has taken place this afternoon—controversial matter.
  First, I should like to explain that, even when the statutory provision is

  1155
  removed, Clause 20(1), (2) and (3)—and I think the noble Viscount will agree with me—will ensure that the profession of midwifery is not open to men without a good deal of restriction and safeguards. I want your Lordships to bear in mind that even when the statutory provision is removed there is still going to be a great deal of restriction and safeguard so far as male midwives are concerned. Indeed we are sure that there must be administrative safeguards. However, the point at issue is whether there should be a statutory prohibition saying that in no circumstances may a man be a midwife. We on the Government side—and bearing in mind what the Bill is trying to do I think this is important—see this as a matter of principle and we do not think that a firm prohibition is justified.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Hear, hear!
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We would certainly accept that there should be freedom of choice for the patient, freedom for the expectant mother to choose not to be cared for or treated by a male midwife. There is no problem about this. When the woman is admitted to hospital before the birth of the baby this can be clearly determined and her attitude can be gone into and recorded. In many other ways these sort of things are already done. We appreciate that there should be no deterrent to expectant mothers seeking proper and necessary care.
  However, I think I have to put to your Lordships very firmly that we do not accept that the removal of the statutory prohibition, together with complete exemption from the Bill of the provisions relating to training and access to jobs in the case of midwifery, need or will have undesirable effects which we do not want on either of these counts. We propose—and I want to say this with all the force I can bring—to limit the training and the employment of men as midwives to a few selected centres where it will be possible not only to ensure but to guarantee that there can be a choice by the patient. The Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, seeks to provide that there should be an Affirmative Resolution procedure for the Order bringing into effect the
  1156
  abolition of the prohibition of male midwives and, if I may, I should like to deal with that for a moment. Quite sincerely, I find it difficult to advise your Lordships to accept that Amendment.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Of course I had a choice whether to put it down under the Affirmative or the Negative Resolution at the end of the Bill. I chose the positive one because it seemed to me to be a controversial matter and one that Parliament would probably like to debate. If the Government find that to be the only sticking point and they want it done by the Negative procedure, it does not make a great deal of difference to me.
  5.25 p.m.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his comments. In the first place, as a matter of general principle, and except where otherwise provided in the Act, it is the practice that Acts of Parliament come into force—as the noble Viscount knows probably better than most people in your Lordships' House—when they are enacted. It is quite common to provide that an Act shall come into force on days appointed by the Minister. This is often administratively convenient, but the general practice—if he does not mind my saying so—which is reflected in the Bill in Clause 78 which deals with the transitional commencement procedures, commitments and appeals, is that the Commencement Order is not subject to Parliamentary procedure.
  The reason for this basic rule is that, if Parliament has willed that a Bill should be law, it should not be possible to have further votes on the subject. This rule should be broken only in exceptional circumstances and I do not think that exceptional circumstances obtain in the case of Clause 20(4) and (5). I have recognised that there has been controversy about these provisions, though I think that this is not sufficient reason for having a provision which would be unique in the Bill requiring their commencement to be the subject of an Affirmative Resolution. I shall go into the matter though I should have thought that much the same thing would also apply to a Negative Resolution.
  I think we should decide whether we want the provisions in the Bill. If we

  1157
  want them I think we should do something about it now. It is all very well for noble Lords to say that this is not the right time. No time is the right time. This Parliament has done a tremendous amount—and if I may say so with great respect so did the previous Government—when perhaps we could not afford to do what we were doing but we went on doing it. As the noble Lord says, that may well be why we are broke, but it is still necessary in the interests of people generally to do the things that are being done. In fact we have to ask ourselves when is the right time.
  I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me that the subsections to which I have referred, Clause 20(1), (2) and (3), provide safeguards which I think we could bring in without any difficulty. Noble Lords have asked, "Why chaperones? Is this not going to put a heavy strain on the existing number of female midwives?" But it does not have to be another midwife, it could be another woman. In general practice when a doctor is examining a patient it is not uncommon for another woman (not necessarily a nurse) to be present. This could be done in this kind of situation. I do not think that we ought to be carried away by statements that women do not want this and that their husbands do not want this.
  My noble friend Lord Leatherland said that most women want a woman midwife. We do not know this and my noble friend does not know it, either. There are millions of women of child-bearing age in this country and nobody has a clue as to what they want. He said that most husbands would object to a male midwife. We just do not know this. This is assumption and I do not think we ought to make judgments on assumption. I am not impressed by the sources from which objections come—and I do not mean your Lordships' Committee today. One is grateful to have the views of both sides, but one would expect—at least I would expect; perhaps I had better speak for myself—objections to come from the Royal College of Midwives and a whole number of other sources with vested interests in this particular field. But we must face the fact that if we are going to be sincere and absolutely genuine, and want to get on to the Statute Book something
  1158
  which will deal in no uncertain way with sex discrimination, it means precisely that—the prohibition of sex discrimination.
  If I have any difference of opinion with the noble Viscount, it is on timing. There is a principle here. We ought to accept the principle. I know he is going to say: "You would be accepting the principle, but implementation ought to be delayed until a more suitable time." I do not know when there is going to be a more suitable time. There is no evidence that husbands and wives are opposed to this proposal. We could not get such evidence, in my opinion, if we tried. There is every reason to believe that we should provide facilities whereby we can have male midwives, bearing in mind that their training would have to be done strategically. Training would have to be done in certain large centres where there are a number of women midwives and where there would be a choice between male and female midwives. That would mean, of course, that it could not be done all over the country for probably a long time, if ever. We ask your Lordships to accept the principle, bearing in mind that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill itself to ensure that male midwives, if and when they are fully qualified, will function and train only in areas where they will be very much in a minority, not in a majority.
  Baroness SUMMERSKILL: There is a new factor here. My noble friend said that a chaperon need not be a qualified woman; she could be a lay woman. How could a lay woman judge whether a male midwife was behaving in an unprofessional manner if she knew nothing about the technique of midwifery?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think we need to be too delicate about the use of this word "chaperon". I think we know, or at least I imagine, that the idea of the man being chaperoned is mainly to observe his conduct rather than his professional skill. It is felt that this would be a useful aid.
  Baroness PHILLIPS: I believe it is wrong to pass legislation on a description of this kind. I do not know where we are going to find these women. My daughter-in-law has twins who are four months of age. Because we live in London, not even a home help can be provided,

  1159
  and one is unable to obtain paid help. To assume that there will be a supply of these ladies to sit in while the male midwife is at work is totally impracticable and totally a fantasy idea. It seems to me that we are passing legislation on the supposition that certain people will be available, when we know in practice they do not exist.
  The Minister has said that protections are contained within the Bill. He did not spell out what they were. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, knows. But I would ask seriously where in London—I do not ask about the whole of the country—a supply of those women is to be found? There is not a good supply of nurses in maternity hospitals. I can assure your Lordships that practically every other day I talk to groups of young wives—I have no axe to grind—and I listen to what they have to say, and I would ask whether it is right for us as legislators totally to ignore the views of people outside this House. I do not think so.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My noble friend raises two points. One concerns safeguards. I thought I dealt fully with the safeguards which are already to be found in Clause 20, subsections (1), (2) and (3). The safeguards are that male midwives would be trained only in certain areas and upon completion of their training they would be very much in a minority; and there would be ample midwives, both male and female, for a woman to choose from. All our evidence shows that male midwives will be very much in a minority. The other point concerns where we are going to get chaperons from. Until we have a scheme there is little we can do about seeking them. A good many of our hospitals, certainly our large hospitals which will be the centre of this kind of activity, have a number of creditable and responsible volunteers. Whether they could be used, I do not know. But I would not say it would, be impossible to find suitable people to do this work.
  5.38 p.m.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I cannot of course withdraw this Amendment without the consent of the Committee. Before I even decide whether I shall ask for that consent, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord, Lord
  1160
  Wells-Pestell, one or two further questions. First of all, he refers to the protection in Clause 20, subsections (1), (2) and (3). Nothing is said there about recruiting chaperons; nothing is said about there being training in certain areas only; nothing is said about organisation; nothing is said about timing. All that is said is that certain provisions in the earlier part of this Bill which ensure that discrimination shall not take place will not apply to the professional midwife. The clause does not tell us any more than that. It does not provide any positive protection to anybody. Nor does it tell us anything about the way in which this system is going to be worked by the Department of Health and Social Security.
  What I want to know from the noble Lord is this. If this Amendment does not go into the Bill, when is this clause going to be brought into force? When does the noble Lord's right honourable friend propose to use the powers which one finds in a later part of the Bill whereby the Bill can be brought into effect? The powers are in Clause 78. When are they to be used to bring Clause 20 into effect? Furthermore, will the noble Lord tell us something else which was not told to Members of another place? Before those powers are used, precisely what organisational arrangements are going to be made? Where are these areas to be? What will be the prerequisites within the National Health Service for providing the special protection, the special provisions, that the noble Lord very fairly spelt out?
  I do not suppose that the noble Lord can answer these questions today, because I suspect that nobody in the Department of Health and Social Security has yet made up his mind, nor have the resources been provided. That means that Clause 20 will not come into force as soon as the Bill is passed. The Committee is probably fairly safe in taking that factor into account.
  I put another point to the noble Lord, He has heard what has been said on every side of this Committee. Probably the Department will achieve precisely and exactly what my Amendment seeks to achieve by simply not bringing the clause into effect at all. But that will not allay the fears of the people who have written—the people who have seen this clause in the Bill and are worried by it. I

  1161
  entirely agree with the noble Lord. When I first heard of this, I said to myself, "Oh, it's the Royal College of Midwives and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they took this view. I'm certainly not going to put down an Amendment until I have talked to them". And talk to them I did with my noble friend Lady Young—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, talked to them as well.
  I will tell your Lordships why I am inclined to give the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, another chance to go back to his Department and think about this again. The Royal College of Midwives is having its conference during the last two days of this week. Certainly the Secretary and President told me when they came to see me—and I hope that they will forgive me for announcing this—that they were proposing to discuss at their conference the very suggestion I have put down in the Amendment. Supposing that the Royal College of Midwives in full conference comes to the conclusion that this is the right way to do it, will that not be of great assistance to the Government? At once it will remove the suggestion that there is any prejudice. There was certainly no prejudice in what they said to me and my noble friend. They said "The time will come. Younger people are not taking this attitude about male midwives. They're not anything like so sensitive about these things. We think that the time will come". And the time may not be that far off—probably the same time as the noble Lord has it in mind to bring into operation Clause 20. Therefore, would it not be sensible for the Government to put this House in possession of a few more facts? If the noble Lord can tell me now when Clause 20 will come into effect, I will sit down and give him the opportunity to do so. I see a broad smile on his face which I think is a smile suggesting that he does not know. However, I will give way if he can tell us.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Viscount is asking me for a date, I cannot give it to him, but let me say that I know how my right honourable friend the Secretary of State feels about this, just as I know how my honourable friend the Minister of State feels about it. They are no less sensitive about this matter than
  1162
  are noble Lords. They are fully aware of what people are thinking and feeling. They know it is a sensitive area. It must remain a sensitive area, and because it is a sensitive area it is their intention, as I said earlier, to see that the training of male midwives takes place in strategic areas where the right kind of training can be given. When they emerge as qualified male midwives they will be considerably outnumbered by women midwives, so there can be a choice. It means that they will be available only in certain parts of the country, and my guess is that they will be available only in those areas where there are adequate training facilities. They will not be available throughout the whole country and I should have thought that this is what the noble Viscount and the remainder of your Lordships would want.
  Lord LEATHERLAND: Will my noble friend allow me to put a question to him on his statement that male midwives will be in major maternity centres. Is he aware that paragraph 45 of the White Paper on which the Bill is based says that will be so "at least initially". It means, therefore, that later on it will not be so.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said. The fact remains that he does not know where and he does not know when. The difference between the noble Lord and myself is that my formula allows him exactly the same delay as he will have under the Bill as it is drafted, except that everybody who is concerned with this matter will see on the face of it, the Statute, in the place where they would expect to find it, a provision providing for the necessary delay. In principle, therefore, there is no difference between us upon this. What the noble Lord can bear in mind is what he said I was going to say, and say it I will.
  I have specifically and conscientiously—because I believe in it myself—allowed the noble Lord the point of principle that into this Bill there should go the express provision removing this piece of discrimination. I entirely agree with him that this should find a place in this Bill, but as it will be delayed in its coming into operation I suggest, for the reasons I have given, that we should look at it again to see whether it should not be expressed. I do not know what the Committee

  1163
  thinks. I am inclined to allow the noble Lord to take this back to his right honourable friend and his honourable friend to discuss it again and tell them of the views of the Members of this Committee as expressed this afternoon—and my views, for what they are worth. I suggest also that we might like to know what the Royal College of Midwives say later this week. Therefore, tentatively I wish to withdraw this Amendment today with the absolutely certain determination that I shall put it down again at Report stage, unless something very strange has happened in the meantime, and then I shall take it to a Division. I do not know what the Committee says, and I am entirely in their hands. However, unless anybody says anything to the contrary, I respectfully beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Lord PLATT: We do not know exactly when this matter will be raised at Report stage. Some of us have listened for a very long time to very interesting arguments which have been rather interfered with by continuous conversation on my left. It may be that when the Report stage is reached there will not be nearly so full a House. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will think twice before finally withdrawing his Amendment.
  Lord SEGAL: At this stage, could my noble friend reinforce the arguments of the noble Viscount and assure the Committee that if such legislation should reach the Statute Book, the same sanctions and penalties will apply in the case of a trained male midwife who is found guilty of unprofessional conduct, as in the case of a registered doctor—that he risks ruining his professional career? If this assurance were given to the Committee at this stage, how could we oppose the principle involved in this clause? Why should we assume that every member of a much-maligned sex must necessarily, if he is a trained male midwife, have one thought uppermost in his mind? Why must every member be automatically suspect and thought to be susceptible? Surely the principle of discrimination against the male sex ought to apply equally as against the female sex.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Your Lordships have been very generous in the
  1164
  amount of time given to the discussion of this matter. There is nothing between us. The noble Viscount, as well as the Government, want to do the right thing. I wonder whether it will satisfy the noble Viscount if I say this. Let the Government read Hansard very carefully and pay particular attention to what he and others have said, including my noble friend Lord Segal, who has just sat down, to see whether we can come back with something that will be acceptable. Perhaps I may be allowed to write to the noble Viscount between now and Report stage to find out whether there is some measure of agreement between us.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Although the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and a number of other Lords have done us the honour of listening to this discussion, I would rather get this agreed. I do not necessarily want this forced upon an unwilling Government by a Division. If the Government read what has been said, I believe they will be convinced by this. I agree with the noble Lord that there is nothing between us. It is a matter of presentation and showing people that there can be the necessary delay to allow things to be properly organised and to take account of what is a very real public opinion. The noble Lord and I are at one on this. It is a matter of how we put it into the Bill, and I believe we can reach a solution which will be on the lines I have suggested, or something else. Let us try to agree on an Amendment of some kind to show that we are aware of this point and that we are prepared to bend a little in our approach to these problems in order to arrive at something which everyone will accept and which will be acceptable in another place. Therefore, I hope that I may be given leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  5.50 p.m.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 22:
  After Clause 21 insert the following new clause:
  Single-sex trade unions
  ".—(1) Section 12 of this Act shall not apply to an organisation of workers if the Registrar (as defined in the Trade Unions and

  1165
  Labour Relations Act 1974) is satisfied and so certifies in writing that the following conditions are fulfilled—

  (a) that it is an organisation which provides services or benefits to men only or to women only; and

  (b) that there exist one or more organisations which provide services or benefits to members of the opposite sex to an extent no less favourable to members of that sex than those provided to members of the first-mentioned organisations; and

  (c) that all organisations referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall have given notice to the Registrar that none of them objects to the membership of any of them being confined to men only or to women only as the case may be.

  (2) Any certificate issued by the Registrar under subsection (1) of this section shall cease to have effect if any of the conditions mentioned in that subsection cease to be fulfilled."
  The noble Viscount said: Now it is my turn to "have a go "at the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and I am going to ask him exactly the same question about the coming into operation of Clause 12. I have read with enormous interest the proceedings in the Committee yesterday. I am sorry that I was not here, but I had a professional engagement. The noble Lord was pressed quite hard by a number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and my noble friend Lady Young, to say whether he was prepared to accept an Amendment which dealt with the teaching profession, which this Amendment of mine avowedly does, and so did that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. At least we know that all these provisions would not necessarily come into force at once. The noble Lord was therefore asked whether there was to be a period of grace during which trade unions of the kind with which my Amendment deals may adjust to the new situation which the structure and the whole influence of the Bill has brought to bear upon the situation, and the noble Lord gave nobody an answer.
  In the educational world, I think that probably the powers are wide enough for his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to deal with separate trade unions under Clause 12 separately. But can the noble Lord tell us when, in relation to the teaching profession, Clause 12 is to be brought into force? I think that the period of grace during which the Association of Assistant Mistresses and the
  1166
  Headmistresses need to adjust themselves to the provisions of this Bill can probably be met by not doing anything for a little while. The noble Lord did not really concede this; he gave no information about it at all, so here is another chance for him and I invite him to do so now. I beg to move.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: The noble Viscount is extremely kind. As he said, I did not yesterday give the assurance that I was asked for about the delay that would or could take place before this clause came into effect. I did not give that assurance or make any statement on it because I did not wish to mislead Members of this Committee into feeling that there could be a very long period of delay, which I thought was the period which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, was asking for. However, we have considered his argument and the arguments of the other noble Lords most carefully; that is, that the four teacher associations which make up the joint four should be given time to comply with the requirements of the Bill. The Government are not unsympathetic towards this proposition and will be prepared to consider introducing at the Report stage an Amendment which will give transitional arrangements.
  There has also been tabled a new Amendment to Clause 78 which is shortly to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, to the effect that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), Clause 12 of this Bill shall not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years beginning with the passing of this Act. This will shortly come up for debate and it is our intention to say that we shall be ready to give that transitional period. I hope this will also meet the point raised by the noble Viscount, because it appears to be what he has asked for, and this we are prepared to do.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think that is most helpful and I am glad that we have had a chance to return to it. If the noble Lord thinks that we are going to get to Clause 78 "shortly". I am afraid he has another think coming!
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I was making my contribution.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I will try to do the same. I do not know whether it was made entirely plain yesterday that there was provision in my drafting which provided for the repeal of the clause. It is part of my Amendment to Clause 75. I do not think anybody pointed it out, but mine was intended to be a transitional provision in any event. It sounds as though the noble Lord's second thoughts are good ones. I should like to consider what he has said when I have seen the text on Clause 78, but certainly this seems to be a great advance on the position yesterday and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [General duty in public actor of education]:
  5.56 p.m.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT Lord CROWTHER-HUNT moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 17, line 35, after ("performance") insert ("by a body to which subsection (1) applies of the duties imposed by sections 22 and 23 and shall also apply to the performance").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendments 24 and 25 are drafting Amendments. The Government's policy was set out in the White Paper Equality for Women, as being that enforcement of the education clauses should rest in the first place with the education Ministers. The Amendments ensure (and this is not expressed in terms in the present clause) that the Secretary of State's powers under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 shall be exercisable in respect of breaches of Sections 22 and 23 as they are in respect of a breach of the general duty imposed by Section 25. The powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act remain the only sanction for breach of the general duty, but a complainant's remedy in the civil courts in respect of a contravention of Sections 22 or 23 which is also a breach of the general duty is preserved. The point I am trying to make is that these are only drafting Amendments to give clear effect to the intentions of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 37, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 38.—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
  Amendment moved—
  Page l8, line 4, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 5 and insert—
  ("(4) The sanctions in subsections (2) and (3) shall be the only sanctions for breach of the general duty in subsection (1), but without prejudice to the enforcement of sections 22 and 23 under section 63 or otherwise (where the breach is also a contravention of either of those sections).")—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Exception for single-sex establishments]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
  6.0 p.m.
  Lord MONSON: I indicated on Second Reading that I found the single-sex exemption provisions of Clause 26(1)(a) unnecessarily tightly drawn, and my researches since then have done nothing to dampen my fears—quite the opposite, This paragraph effectively defines a single-sex school as one where the admission of the opposite sex is exceptional. Noble and learned Lords will correct me if I am wrong, but I have been under the impression that judges, and indeed the legal profession generally, have been complaining bitterly about the imprecision and lack of clarity of some of the drafting of recent Acts of Parliament. The word "exceptional" would seem to typify this imprecision. I think the average person would tend to take the word "exceptional" to cover, for instance, the case where a headmaster's daughter, or, for that matter, an assistant master's daughter, was allowed to enrol in a school that otherwise took only boys. It might also just possibly cover an independent boys' school such as Marlborough a few years ago when they admitted a mere six girls. It could not possibly cover Marlborough today where there are as many as 60 girls, forming just under 7 per cent. of the total enrolment.
  I have discovered that there are between 40 and 50 independent boys'

  1169
  schools at the moment which admit a certain number of girls—the latest recruit being Rugby, where it was announced two days ago that they were about to do so—the average number of girls at each of these schools being in the region of 25. There is also one girls' school, Felixstowe College which has recently announced that it will take boys; so far only one boy has in fact applied. The point is that none of these schools intends going fully co-educational, so that all of them are in danger if this clause stays as it is. Marlborough, for instance, would either have to get rid of most if not all of its 60 girls, or would have to get rid of about 370 boys so as to be able to admit 370 girls in order to equalise the numbers.
  I cannot believe that a majority of noble Lords would wish this to happen, or that they would think it fair or desirable. There may be some case from the equal opportunities point of view for having some sort of restriction, but confining it to higher education only: although one must point out that the same problems would then appear to confront those men's colleges at Cambridge, and to a lesser extent at Oxford, which admit a certain number of women with no ultimate intention of going co-educational. I think the clause as it stands is very unsatisfactory and worrying, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure me that something can be done before Report stage.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I am grateful for the points the noble Lord has made, and I will do my best to reassure him. Indeed the point of the clause is to cover precisely what he is saying, both Marlborough yesterday and Marlborough today, in the way that the noble Lord was putting it. Rather than take up an undue amount of time, if the noble Lord feels that he would like to be reassured in detail on this point I should be very glad to consult with him to see if his fears are as unfounded as I am certain they are. Certainly, the intention is to do what the noble Lord is wanting, and if he would accept that assurance perhaps we could talk together later.
  Lord SOMERS: Before we leave this subject, I should like to say, as a former schoolmaster, that although one naturally
  1170
  wants equal opportunity for girls and boys when leaving school, I feel their education should be different. Men and women should be equal, most certainly, but I sincerely hope that they will always remain different. Merely to take the rather minor point of the sort of games they play, I cannot think of Rugger as a very suitable game for girls; nor do I see boys taking to netball very successfully. But there are many more things than that, such as the whole interior life of the school. There are some very distinguished girls' schools. I do not see why we should have to have coeducational schools throughout the country. I have always been firmly against it and I shall remain so.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Exception for single-sex establishments turning co-educational]:
  6.4 p.m.
  Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 19, line 18, after ("pupil") insert ("or member of the staff").
  The noble Baroness said: This is the Amendment which we discussed when we were considering Amendment No. 20, after Clause 19, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and I collaborated. We said that Amendment No. 20 was very widely drawn, and we would delay the discussion till we reached the more narrowly worded Amendment which is now before the Committee. The point of this is to deal with the interim period. This was the point of putting it in in this clause, which covers transitional periods for single-sex schools or institutions, or colleges going co-educational. I, for my part, entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, that this Bill is about giving equal opportunity on merit, not about making special opportunities for women, and I believe the whole principle of the Bill would be undermined if we went any way along the road of positive discrimination, much as I know many women would like to go along that road, unless we do it in a way which is quite specific and limited and with our eyes open.
  In this Bill we have made one exception in favour of positive discrimination. The Government did this themselves by

  1171
  putting in, quite rightly, the clause which permits positive discrimination in the field of training. I am suggesting that this Amendment is a similar limited movement, both in extent and duration, in the direction of positive discrimination, but one which is very easy to identify and to define, as to the time when it should be terminated. I know that the noble Lord said on the previous Amendment that the situation of the single-sex school or callege going co-educational was covered so far as the staff were concerned by Clause 7(2)(e)—
  "the holder of the job provides individuals with personal services promoting their welfare or education …".
  I do not at first sight believe that a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, would recognise his job as described in that clause. It is about the future Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, when that College is taking an increasing number of young women, whom we are talking in connection with this clause. If the noble Lord will assure me that such positions as Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, are really covered by this clause, I should be delighted to withdraw my Amendment, but it seems to me unlikely.
  He mentioned the situation of a tutor, and I suspect that he had in mind, as I believe is really intended by Clause 7(2)(e), the welfare of and assistance to the girl pupils. It is a slightly different point from this question of Fellowships at the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges, which is what this Amendment is all about. I do not think it would be a serious breach of the accepted agreed principle on positive discrimination to allow Clause 27 to be amended, so that it would not be illegal under the Bill to admit into colleges going co-educational for the transitional period not only pupils but also members of the staff. It would be limited in extent and in time, and it would make a very positive contribution to what is a limited but very difficult problem. I beg to move.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give us some thoughts about the extent of Clause 7(2)(e). I know that we discussed this at an earlier stage and I do not want to delay things further, but I was rather taken aback when he said that Clause 7(2)(e) covers this point. I
  1172
  wonder what other points it covers. It seems to me that if it covers this point it can cover almost anything, and it is a great hole running through the Bill which it may be our duty to plug at a later stage. I think that we may have not taken into account the full implications of Clause 7(2)(e), and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say some words about that.
  6.10 p.m.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: Clause 27 of the Bill as drafted provides that a single-sex school or other educational establishment which wishes to admit pupils on a non-discriminatory basis may be permitted to do so by stages and over a fixed period by means of a transitional exemption order. A transitional exemption order does not, however, provide for the establishment concerned discriminating when advertising for and appointing staff.
  I accept that a school which has hitherto been, say, a boys' school may have an all-male staff, or most of the staff are men. When this school begins to admit girls, there will be a need to appoint some women teachers to undertake a pastoral role, and possibly to teach subjects such as physical training and sex education which may best be taught to girls by a woman. Such appointments of women staff are already covered by Clause 7(2)(e) of the Bill, which the noble Baroness spoke about and I mentioned earlier. This clause provides that a discriminatory appointment can be defended on the grounds that a person's sex is a genuine occupational qualification where a job involves providing individuals with personal services promoting their welfare or education, or similar personal services, and those services can best be provided by a person of that sex.
  The noble Baroness said that she finds that difficult to apply to a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and I think that that is so. The point I was trying to make was that the Government believe that this goes as far as is necessary in all the circumstances. The Government cannot accept that the staffing of a school or a college which is moving towards coeducation needs to reflect the proportion of the boys and girls in the school, or the proportion of sexes in the college. The Government take the view, as was said at

  1173
  Report stage in another place, that there is no educational justification for saying that girls should be taught by women or boys by men, and many subjects can be taught equally well by men or women. It is on that basis that the Government stand on this matter, and therefore, Clause 7(2)(e) is designed, as I am now trying to make clear, for those special areas where it is necessary, or where it is felt it is better, for a girl to be taught by a woman in certain special subjects.
  The Government believe that on other matters, as I said in the Report stage, there really is no educational justification for saying that girls should be taught by women or boys by men even during a transitional period, and to go further than that would be to introduce the positive discrimination in favour of women which this Bill it not about. This Bill is about equal opportunities for women, and we believe that that is what it will achieve. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to agree that discrimination other than that allowed by Clause 7 cannot be justified, and therefore to agree to the withdrawal of this Amendment.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If we want to resurrect this at another stage, I should be grateful for a little technical assistance from the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, on behalf of my noble friend, to see what is the best way of doing it. We might want to test whether or not the principle is right. The noble Baroness attempts to apply the transitional exemption order provisions, but to a college in a collegiate university. I looked at Schedule 2 to this Bill, and as it is now drawn it seems as though it would not apply to any university at all, because these are bodies which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the authorities mentioned in that Schedule. If that is right, there are no doubt a number of things that we can do about it. But it may be that, after all, the noble Baroness's method of approach is not susceptible of being fitted into the texture of the Bill, and we ought really to do it by a new clause if we are to do it at all.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: Listening to my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt, I have been reminded of the remark made by Earl Russell, better known as Bertrand Russell, that carrying any argument to its
  1174
  logical conclusion was carrying it far beyond where you ought to take it. In the discussion that we have had, we have been faced with logical imperatives. We are concerned rather with the actual facts. I have heard reference made to a certain college of which I am not aware, something called Trinity College at Cambridge. But we are dealing with the whole question of how the education of young people in universities is carried on. This has nothing to do with the question of whether you fit it into a certain logical pattern. Of course any Department of Education would wish to have a beautiful, clear, logical pattern, and they would thereby destroy education completely.
  We are not concerned with this. We are concerned with how you deal with educating young people, boys and girls in universities and colleges, and so on, and surely it must be recognised that where you have a preponderance of girls in a college it is important that you have women in that college in the position of tutors, lecturers, and professors. If you do not have this, then the whole purpose of this Sex Discrimination Bill is being utterly destroyed. What you are, in effect, doing is saying that girls are not allowed to have the sort of education appropriate to them; that they must fit into a pattern which has been decided in the Department of Education. God hell, us! Many of us know the Department of Education and we have a high respect for its purely administrative capacity. But we have very little regard for its understanding of how things are done inside schools and colleges.
  It is important to realise that if we are to do this job properly, we must admit that if we are moving from one situation to another—and I personally am entirely in agreement with this move—there must be a transitional period. If there is a transitional period as is described in this Bill for pupils, must there not also be a transitional period for the staff? Are we going to say that when we move from, let us say, 100 per cent. women students to 50 per cent., or whatever it may be, of men and women students, we are going to move on the staffing side straight across to whatever the accident of the market happens to set up? My noble friend does not believe in the market, nor do I. One cannot throw these things straight into the market and let the market decide how it

  1175
  shall be done, otherwise one might as well go to Petticoat Lane to decide. We should be considering this matter of how thing are done—and I am not ashamed to use this phrase—in a Socialist pattern. We should decide these matters in a way which governs the interests of the people in the community.
  We are concerned with whether the children, the young men and women, will be properly and suitably trained. We are considering whether we will have the right sort of people to train them and I believe that it would be criminally wrong for us to say that we should move suddenly from what has been a certain ordered pattern to an utterly disordered one simply because the market dictates it. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider this matter and realise how important it is for us to pay attention not only to whether we allow the pupils' opinions to be respected but also whether they get what they need.
  Lord SOMERS: Following that remarkable speech by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, with which I entirely agreed, I rise simply to say that I have taught both boys and girls and that I know well that I did 100 per cent. better when I was teaching boys than when I was teaching girls, and the same is probably true of most teachers.
  Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I find it somewhat difficult to give the noble Viscount the technical advise he sought when, as I understood him, he was asking whether it would be better in the circumstances to put down a new clause for discussion or take up the issues before us when we come to Schedule 2. The difficulty I find myself in is that there are a number of different strands of argument being adduced in opposition to the line I put forward on behalf of the Government. Some noble Lords are arguing for positive discrimination for all time in different educational establishments. This was certainly the gist of the earlier remarks of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and was partly an inference I drew from his speech a moment ago. Then there is the question of positive discrimination during the transitional period, and there is the argument, which has been partly put forward, that in any educational establishment the proportion of
  1176
  males to females among the teaching staff should somehow or other for all time reflect the proportion of males and females being taught.
  There are therefore a number of different strands within the arguments that have been put forward and I suggest to the noble Viscount—I hope this is in order; if it is not I stand to be corrected—that those who are taking a line, against the points I made on behalf of the Government, should get together, produce a new clause and put it forward at a later point within this Committee stage, and then we can meet the issues directly and consider them directly and precisely; as precisely as the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness would want us to do.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: We welcome the noble Lord's suggestion and accept his offer and will do our best to produce something for the next day of the Committee stage. If that should prove impossible, then of course there will still be the Report stage when we can do it. I hope the noble Lord will consider seriously what we are putting forward because it seems that there is a far stronger case for giving way on this issue than there was, for example, on the question of the schoolmasters' and schoolmistresses' unions, where there was a built-in transitional time anyway, in view of the length of time it would take for the change in the balance of those organisations to happen. If the Government could give way on that, they should give way on this and I hope that we will be able to produce a satisfactory new clause. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Discrimination in provision of goods, facilities or services]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
  6.25 p.m.
  Baroness VICKERS: On Second Reading I asked for an explanation of this provision. I am not asking the Minister to give me such an explanation tonight but I trust that he will look into the matter. The clause is extremely complicated.

  1177
  Subsection (3) begins "For the avoidance of doubt", and as one reads it one becomes more doubtful all the time. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would consider the matter and perhaps write to me or otherwise simplify the wording of the Bill.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I agree with my noble friend Baroness Vickers, because for people who are alleged to have done something discriminatory there will be a defence in the county court or sheriff court. I believe that this refers to hairdressers, but the phraseology is not good and it must be simplified because it could become so litigeous and tiresome that it might not be worth having this provision in the Bill.
  Lord MONSON: I said on Second Reading that I thought that whether by accident or design this Bill would effectively make it illegal for British Rail to retain "Ladies Only" waiting rooms at stations and, to the extent that they still exist, "Ladies Only" compartments on trains. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, shook his head to indicate that I was mistaken, but the more I study this clause the more puzzled I become by it. Subsection (2)(a) and (f), particularly as qualified by subsection (1)(b), which refers to facilities being provided "in a like manner" to one sex as to another, would appear to rule out these single-sex waiting rooms and compartments. I am bound to say, however, that if these are permitted, then bars in pubs or hotels which admit men only must surely be permitted as well. I am in favour of the retention of "Ladies Only" waiting rooms and "Ladies Only" compartments on trains, if there is a demand for them, just as I am in favour of "Men Only" bars in pubs and hotels if there is a demand for them—though I would not patronise one myself—and provided there are facilities under the same roof for members of the opposite sex to have a drink. However, it seems illogical to permit one and ban the other, although in fact I do not think that the clause as drafted does that, because it seems to be either all or nothing, one way or the other.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I accept a great deal of what the noble Viscount said about the phraseology of this clause. As he rightly said, it affects
  1178
  hairdressing, and tailoring as well in certain circumstances. Perhaps it could be phrased more happily, but he will know from experience the difficulty the draftsmen can have on some occasions. It is easy for us to criticise phraseology on occasions such as this, but it is often more difficult to make the phraseology clearer in legislation. However, if we can do anything we will do it, but I cannot hold out much prospect of that. In regard to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I will inquire into the fate of "Ladies Only" waiting rooms and compartments and write to him before the Report stage.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 27:
  After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
  Discrimination: consent for assignment or sub-letting
  (" .—(1) Where the licence or consent of the landlord or of any other person is required for the disposal to any person of premises in Great Britain comprised in a tenancy, it is unlawful for the landlord or other person to discriminate against a woman by withholding the licence or consent for disposal of the premises to her.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—

  (a) the person withholding a licence or consent, or a near relative of his ("the relevant occupier") resides, and intends to continue to reside, on the premises, and

  (b) there is on the premises, in addition to the accommodation occupied by the relevant occupier, accommodation (not being storage accommodation or means of access) shared by the relevant occupier with other persons residing on the premises who are not members of his household, and

  (c) the premises are small premises as defined in section 31(2).

  (3) In this section "tenancy" means a tenancy created by a lease or sub-lease, by an agreement for a lease or sub-lease or by a tenancy agreement or in pursuance of any enactment; and "disposal", in relation to premises comprised in a tenancy, includes assignment or assignation of the tenancy and sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises or any part of the premises.
  (4) This section applies to tenancies created before the passing of this Act, as well as to others.")
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to deal with what I believe the House will agree is a lacuna in the provisions of the Bill dealing with

  1179
  the dispersal of premises. Subject to the small dwellings exception in Clause 30(1), it makes it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of premises. This will deal with a situation in which a landlord refuses to grant a lease to a woman on the grounds of her sex. It will also make it unlawful for any tenant to discriminate by refusing to assign a lease or sublet a premises to a woman on the grounds of her sex. The new clause is designed to deal with the situation in which a tenancy agreement provides that the landlord's licence or consent is required to assignment or subletting. Let us say that a tenant wants to assign a lease to a woman and that the landlord withholds his consent because the prospective assignee is a woman. If the tenant abides by that refusal of consent and does not assign to the woman, the woman will—with some justification—feel that she has been discriminated against.
  However, the tenant has probably not contravened Clause 30 because the reason for his action was the withholding of consent by the landlord and the landlord—who is the real culprit in this situation—has clearly not contravened Clause 30 because he is not disposing of the premises himself. It is true that the withholding of consent would probably be held to be unreasonable and will become inoperative under the landlord and tenant legislation, but we think it right to put the matter beyond dispute and that is why we have proposed the new Clause. I beg to move.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is much better to have it spelt out in the Bill than to have to rely upon somebody taking a case to court, with we know not what result. I agree that the clause should go in and that it is an improvement.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Exception for small dwellings]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord MONSON: I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can say why subsection (1)(a) exempts only a near relative from the provisions of the two preceding
  1180
  clauses. Clause 77 defines a near relative as a wife, husband, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister or illegitimate child. I should have thought that, in certain cases, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces might be just as much part of the family circle as grandparents and grandchildren. I wonder why they have been excluded.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is difficult to formulate a precise description of what is a reasonable definition of "near relative". The Government have made their view clear in Clause 77(5) and I think that that is reasonable. It is fairly widely drawn, as the noble Lord has pointed out. I will look at the matter again, gladly, but I think that it is probably as widely drawn as is desirable.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I feel that, apart from the question of how one can have those relationships which are listed in Clause 77(5) by affinity—a matter of which I should like an explanation sometime—the definition in the Bill is probably similar to that in the Rent Acts and in the Agricultural Holdings Acts. Probably it is as well to keep a similarity of relationship and not to extend it any wider, and I believe that the better course will be to stick to the Bill.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Exception for political parties]:
  Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment 28:
  Page 21, line 31, after ("applies") insert ("for a period of ten years").
  The noble Baroness said: This is an entirely new clause which was not in the original Bill and which proposes a special provision for persons of one sex only,
  " in the constitution, organization or administration".
  of a political Party which would be unaffected by the goods, facilities and services clause—Clause 29. In this example, it means that separate women's sections for political Parties will remain lawful. I do not think that what I have to say will be particularly popular with any political Party in this Committee tonight because most of them seem to wish to retain this provision. But I feel that it

  1181
  is rather hypocritical to say in subsection (1)(a) that: "… it has as its main object, or one of its main objects, the promotion of parliamentary candidatures for the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
  How, by keeping men and women in separate sections, can one do anything to promote Parliamentary candidates? I feel that it is extremely unfortunate that we should keep up this system in, I believe, all three Parties. Surely, the great thing, if we really want to work together, is gradually—and that is why we put in 10 years—to ensure that there is a change of thought and that men and women can work together on political matters. After all, it is 55 years since women got the vote and we have very few Members of Parliament. I believe that that is partly because of the segregation of the sexes. Traditionally, when the women have their annual conferences nothing particular ever comes out of them. They are very enjoyable, they provide a good get-together; there are discussions, but those who attend are not, in most cases, delegates. They just come from their local constituency and therefore they have no power at all. They learn quite a lot from hearing the Ministers or Shadow Ministers and the leaders of their Party, but that will not help women in the future. I suggest that it is very detrimental that we should keep these groups separate.
  I quite realise that it is not possible to change the system quickly, so we have suggested a period of 10 years in the hope that the matter can be worked out over that time. I feel that, if there are to be equal opportunities, equal powers and equal work under the Bill, all political Parties must acknowledge that women do most of the work in the constituencies, at General Elections and in raising funds—and so long as we keep these separate sections this will go on. I do not want it to be perpetuated among the younger generation because, in so many other fields, the younger people get together. I know that most of the political Parties have young sections in which the young start off as boys and girls or young men and women, according to their age, and it seems such a pity that, when they come to join the Party proper, they are so often segregated into groups according to sex.
  So I hope that the Minister will consider this, as the clause is a new one—an afterthought, in other words—and that 10 years or any other time they may like to suggest will be considered sufficient to allow the Parties to think this matter out. Until women can get into the mainstream with men and not have separate organisations, we shall never get them really working together. I know that this is a point which all political Parties find it rather difficult to talk about, but I feel that, now we have the present Bill, it might be a way to achieve a change over a period of years. I beg to move.
  Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I once said of the Labour Party that it had so many principles that it could not live up to all of them at once. It seems to me that here is an example of the failure of the Government to live up to the principles of the Bill in matters relating to its own domestic affairs as a political Party. I am also looking at Amendment No. 47, which makes exceptions for elective bodies which have reserved places for women. These safeguards may be justified. But contrast that with the debate we had yesterday on Clause 12 relating to the teachers' organisations for men and women, who have been separately organised for a very long time; and probably for very good reasons. Until we demurred yesterday from throwing them into the melting pot the day after the Bill became law, we did not realise that no period of grace was allowed for these organisations to adjust themselves. I believe that we have probably not paid enough attention to the need for reasonable periods during which those concerned can adjust themselves to the new and quite drastic reform contained in the Bill.
  I believe that in many respects the Bill is in advance of public opinion, and one has to be very careful when imposing on the public new standards, a new outlook or a new approach, by legislation. A reasonable period for people to become adjusted to the new principles and the new order is a common sense approach to the problem. I need not defend my record in this field. I believe that in the present circumstances, in which there is so much that seems to divide the nation and so much restiveness in various parts of society, especial care is necessary to

  1183
  proceed with reasonable caution in asking the public to accept different ideas. That is the philosophy of the matter that persuades me to have considerable sympathy with the Amendment. Without this, it appears that under Clause 32, political Parties can go on indefinitely in a type of organisation which is in fundamental conflict with the principles of equality which the Bill lays down.
  Ten years seems to be a very reasonable period for political Parties to adjust themselves. I suppose that this applies to women's sections and other traditional forms of activity in political Parties. No one has a feeling of greater indebtedness to women's sections than I; nor is there any other Member of your Lordships' House who has stood for election to another place who knows more than how much one came to rely on the efforts of the women's sections. Nevertheless, I think that they began, and were continued, as a distinctive and differential part of the activity of political Parties in constituencies. I am not sure whether as a matter of principle we want to continue that. Ten years would give everyone the opportunity of forming a new concept of local organisation and of men and women working together.
  I should not like to say what was the principle upon which these separate activities developed in political Parties. I have a feeling that it was because women came on to the political scene later than men, and for all sorts of reasons banded themselves together in women's efforts and women's activities in which they could express themselves, and in which they could be in charge of their own affairs and make their own contributions to political Parties. Therefore, I think it was based on the inferiority, or secondary role, of women when they first came into politics. That is how it occurs to me, seeing how it has developed over a number of years.
  If my deduction from events is correct, that alone suggests that the situation should not be continued indefinitely, but that it should be brought to an end within a reasonable time—
  Lord PANNELL: My Lords—
  Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I hope that my noble friend is not going to spoil my argument.
  Lord PANNELL: My noble friend was asking how this situation developed and I thought that he got it wrong. I think that the women's sections developed from the early days—especially in the trade union movement—when the men worked long hours into the evening and while women had time off, particularly in the afternoon. They could spare the time then, and someone had to look after the larger families in those days. I think that is how it started. I agree with the rest of the argument and so I will not trip up my noble friend. I want merely to ensure that he gets the origins correct.
  Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am very grateful to my noble friend. We do not strongly disagree on matters, and I am glad that he is helping me more than hindering me in the presentation of my argument to the Committee. He is probably correct. But nowadays we frequently have an entirely new situation, in which the man stays at home to look after the family, while the woman goes out to do an evening shift, or part-time work, or take part in political activities. We are living in a different age, and some of the practices of the past should now come under closer scrutiny and should not be continued for an unduly long period.
  I support the Amendment because I regard it desirable to provide a period for the protection which Clause 32 gives to a type of organisation which I believe is rapidly outliving its usefulness in political affairs.
  Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I wish to support my noble friend Lady Vickers. I believe that the origins of segregation go back even further to the time of the suffragettes. I recall that when I was very young the anti-suffrage movement was operating and women banded themselves together very strongly and took strong action to get a vote. That situation probably hung over after they got the vote—which took a long time to get—and they still remain in groups. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Vickers and with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the situation we have been discussing should come to an end. If there is one type of organisation where men and women can work together very strongly, it is the

  1185
  political organisation. I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to accepting this very simple Amendment, allowing termination after 10 years.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: As one who put his name to this Amendment, I should like to intervene briefly. A very serious principle is involved here, and I hope that the Ministers will not dismiss the Amendment lightly. It is very important that these days politicians are not seen to exempt themselves from what they are legislating for other people. This is a very clear case of where we are trying to do it without any good excuse. The proposal must be amended in some way before the Bill passes into law. That it can be done over a period of time I have absolutely no doubt.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said she did not think that the Amendment would be welcome to any political Party, but it is certainly welcome to the Liberal Party. One of the reasons why it is welcome is that the Women's Liberal Federation—our equivalent body, of which my noble friend Lady Seear is President—began two or three years ago to admit male members. There are not very many, but there are a number of people who want to help, and who can help this type of women's support organisation, or who are particularly interested in policy matters which affect the equality of the sexes, or questions dealing specifically with women, and they are totally entitled to become members of the Women's Liberal Federation. There is no reason why these things should not develop gradually and generally, but 10 years is rather long. However, there must surely he some qualification to the clause as it stands.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: I am in sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, but I wish to comment on the statements by my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Pannell. Are not all reforms in advance of public opinion? I recall the many causes espoused by my noble friend Lord Houghton which were far in advance of public opinion. Yet he produced that argument against the Amendment and I am rather surprised, almost shocked.
  Lord PANNELL: I press this point to reply directly to the noble Baroness.
  1186
  Most of the campaigns in which Lord Houghton had taken part in the past were on behalf of women. Now, for the first time, men are making incursions into such women's fields as midwifery; and the women do not like it.
  Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: It does not matter very much at my age what I feel about this at all. I do not mind the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, if she wishes to move it; but I think we are getting to a rather ridiculous situation. I represented an industrial area in Parliament for something like 38 years and therefore I think I am entitled to speak on these matters. To develop the way the discussion has gone in the debate tonight, I think women sometimes enjoy being together—in the same way as I think men enjoy being together. I do not want us to introduce in this Sex Discrimination Bill the sort of situation where people feel that it is only men and women together who are going to make any progress. That is absolutely ridiculous. My noble friend Lady Vickers spoke about a Conservative women's conference. Things may be different in the world she comes from, but I think, at any rate, that women love coming up to a women's conference and being together for a bit and enjoying life.
  You do not always have to have men and women together to enjoy some of the things of life or to make progress. All I can say is that if at the women's conference when they put forward resolutions, sometimes very good ones, there has been a failure, it has been that of MPs. probably men and women, to get the things they wanted on to the Statute Book, because MPs, men and women, did not take the action they could have taken in the House of Commons to forward the causes in which they believed.
  I would not dream of supporting anything which prevented women from meeting together, or men from meeting together. Looking at the country as a whole, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was probably right to say that this Bill is in advance of public opinion. But I am not certain, in the kind of things that one enjoys in life, that one wants to be in advance of public opinion. I do not know whether men realise what fun it is for women—certainly it is so in my part

  1187
  world—occasionally to be together without men. Much as I like them, I certainly would not want always to be with men. I have had plenty of men in my life and enjoy being with them; but I do not always want to be in a mixed society.
  Sometimes people have asked me, as I first fought in a very industrial area—and this was before I was allowed to vote—in Morpeth when I fought a high ranking miner. Bob Smillie. and I fought another high-ranking miner, Ebby Edwards: "How did you manage to get adopted to fight seats like that?" I always replied that it was because there was not a trainload of glamorous young men who wanted to fight difficult seats like that. On the whole, I never got very far. I did not get into Parliament through fighting Morpeth. Although the miners did not vote for me, we always got on very well. I liked them; and sometimes, after they had given me a bad time politically, they used to rescue me.
  I am not going to vote for an alteration of Party administration in a Bill of this kind without ever having heard from, at any rate, my Party organisation, about whether they welcomed the introduction of a clause of this kind. The Amendment I could not care less about—and I am certainly not going to vote for anything that is going to decide how a political Party must organise itself. That is absolutely dotty. In no circumstances would I support it. Probably nobody in the Committee will agree with me, but I think this business of—
  Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way, but I feel that my noble friend Lord Pannell and I are being scolded. Would the noble Baroness kindly turn around and address some of her remarks to her noble friend Lady Vickers. That would distribute the sense of responsibility.
  Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I hope that my noble friend Lady Vickers is listening to what I am saying. I cannot always turn around. I do not turn around and look at the men all the time. There were plenty in the House of Commons and there are plenty in the House of Lords; and I am delighted
  1188
  about that. I think that perhaps some men do not know what fun it is for women sometimes to be alone. I remember one of the first occasions when I went to Finland in the early 1930s to help with British Week there. It was quite amusing. I went to the enormous dinners that were given. They were all-men affairs; I was the only woman present. I thought that the men would like to be by themselves; so that when all the speeches were over I turned to the Minister—there was not an Ambassador in those days—and said: "I think I should be going". He said, "Going?" I said, "I thought that I should like to leave the men together." He replied, "You can't go before the President leaves." So I had to sit there. Perhaps they thought I ought to be thrilled at being with all those men.
  I like to allow men to have their fun as well as I like to have my own fun. I have never had any difficulty in getting on with men. I would not vote for a clause of this kind. Nobody will support me, so I shall not object to it; but I should not dream of supporting a clause which makes arrangements about political organisations without any conference with my political Party. I do not always support my own Party, or my own organisation, but I should not dream of doing this in a Sex Discrimination Bill without having the support of my own Party in my own part of the world. I am sorry. I do not often disagree with my noble friend Lady Vickers but she seems to want to have men and women always together. This means that they are going to miss quite a lot of fun from life. You can have your little Amendment, for all I care; for I shall not be alive in ten years' time. I do not think it is wise on a Sex Discrimination Bill, which I support wholeheartedly, to think that you must go so far in order to arrange how other people ought to organise their affairs. I am sorry about that, but I think we are going dotty if we go on in that way.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This debate has demonstrated, if nothing else, that there is no justice in politics. The Government faced severe criticism from the noble Baroness who has just sat down, and from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who said we were failing to live up to our principles. Last

  1189
  night the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the Government were not paying sufficient attention to the points made by people who took a contrary view on issues arising from this Bill. In these circumstances, it is probably desirable to discuss for a moment what were the antecedents of this clause.
  This matter was raised on the Floor of the House in another place, on the Second Reading of this Bill, by the right honourable gentleman who leads for the Conservative Party on Home Office affairs. The matter was then raised in the Standing Committee by a Labour BackBencher who moved an Amendment which is now this clause. It was, in fact, agreed following consultations which took place—this deals with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside—between the representatives of the political Parties with whom my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary spoke following the issue having been raised by Mr. Gilmour. That is the background to the appearance of this clause in this Bill. I do not know whether I will carry my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby with me when say, as someone who has been involved in the machinery of the Labour Party, that I have absolutely no doubt what would be the effect if the Amendment of the noble Baroness were implemented forthwith. There would be fewer women on the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party; there is no doubt about that.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: But we are considering the Amendment of the noble Baroness.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am well aware of that fact, of course. I am well aware of the Amendment of the noble Baroness to which I will come in a moment. If at this moment one was not permitted to have reserved seats on the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party for women, there would be fewer women on that National Executive.
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: So much the worse for the Labour Party.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should not like to discuss the affairs of the Liberal Party in the presence of the noble Lord. It is some little time since we had the benefit of a woman
  1190
  Liberal Member of Parliament in another place.
  Baroness SEEAR: That is the fault of the system of representation in this country, not the Liberal Party.
  Lord HARRIS of
  GREENWICH: This shows the danger of being provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I will now retreat from this partisan position to the tranquil waters, I trust, of the remainder of my speech. Reserved seats in the Labour Party and I suspect this may be true of the Conservative Party at constituency level—I cannot pretend to be equally expert on their national machinery—means there would be more women in positions of seniority within the Labour Party and, arguably, within the Conservative Party, than would otherwise be the case. I take the point which has been made in this debate. I am well aware of the fact that though there was virtual unanimity in another place, there has been unanimity in the opposite direction in this place on this clause. I will gladly look at the matter between now and Report stage. It is only fair to say that, as this Amendment was tabled following consultations between representatives of the political Parties, there will have to be further consultation about the term of the Amendment of the noble Baroness. Subject to that, and to one or two further Amendments, which will come up later, which will have some beefing on this matter, I am prepared to look at this before the Report stage and draw my right honourable friend's attention to what has been said tonight.
  Baroness VICKERS: I thank the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.5 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord WINDLESHAM: If the noble Lord is to look again at the wording of this clause, perhaps I may be allowed to put an additional point to him which occurred to me during the debate. Does he know—and if he does not, could he find out and tell the House at Report stage—whether the definition of a political Party which is in Clause 31(1)(a) is a new definition to the Statute Book, or was it

  1191
  drawn from somewhere else? I see the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt has rejoined the Committee. He has done so at exactly the right moment for, as an ex-teacher of politics, he will know that there are many different ways of defining political Parties. To do so solely in terms of canditature for Parliament is one way. But whether it is the only way I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is considering at the moment how political Parties should be financed. If it comes to legislation on that aspect, if there was already a definition of a political Party on the Statute Book, for this Bill it would be wise to give some thought to this is a rather wider context.
  Does the noble Lord know what is intended in Clause 32(1)(b)! It says:
  "It is an affiliate of, or has as an affiliate, or has similar formal links with, a political Party within paragraph (a)."
  The trade union movement, as I understand it, is already covered under a separate clause which it is proposed should be added to the Bill after Clause 46. If that is not intended to cover the trade union movement, what other bodies are intended? I appreciate that the noble Lord may not have the answers at his finger-tips. Since he has indicated he is to look at this clause again, could he include the answers to these questions at the same time?
  Baroness BACON: On that point, I should like my noble friend to clear up this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, Clause 32(1)(b) would surely bring in trade unions, so far as the Labour Party were concerned at any rate. Yesterday, when we were discussing whether or not there should be separate trade unions for women, I was against this and so were my noble friends on the Front Bench. I am wondering whether this is now going to be contradictory, in that in one place—which I supported—we decided we were not going to allow trade unions solely for women or solely for men, but here we are allowing that to be so for trade unions, in that they are affiliated to a political Party.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on one point straightaway.
  1192
  The idea of a political Party is unknown to the law and therefore this is the first time, so far as I am aware, that this definition has appeared in that form on the Statute Book. It obviously raises difficult questions of definition and phraseology.
  Lord WINDLESHAM: It is a slightly casual way to place a definition of a political Party for the first time on the Statute Book in a Bill of this nature; it is introduced in a clause which was not in the Bill when it was originally drafted and introduced in another place.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We are always anxious to follow the advice given by the right honourable gentleman who spoke on this subject for the Opposition Party in another place. He raised the question that perhaps the matter should be looked at. The Government have followed his advice, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that that is no cause for any censure of this Government. They clearly had to define a political Party if we were to meet the point raised on the Floor of the House. We have endeavoured to do so in that way. Regarding the second point, paragraph (b) deals with the affiliate. I speak subject to correction, but this deals with the constituency Party. We are talking about two things: first, the national Party organisation and, secondly, constituency Parties.
  My noble friend Lady Bacon raised a question regarding trade unions. My impression is that this is dealt with in another part of the Bill. I do not think it is directly dealt with here but I will certainly look into it, given the fact that I have already said that we will look into the clause as a whole, following the Amendment which would impose a 10-year time limit on this requirement.
  Baroness BACON: Before my noble friend sits down, I do not think he quite grasped my point. It is quite true that trade unions are dealt with in another part of the Bill, which we were discussing yesterday. The Government spokesman resisted any Amendment which would make it possible to have trade unions of one sex, and I was in favour of that. But my point is that Clause 32(1)(b) is in direct contradiction to what is said in the trade union part of this Bill.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make one point. Is it really true to say that this defines "political Party"? It seems only to say what kind of political Party this clause is concerned with. Paragraph (a) says what kind of political Party it applies to, but it does not define "political Party".
  Lord WINDLESHAM: I do not want to take this very much further, but I should like to clear up one misunderstanding with the noble Lord. I was not expressing a point of view consistent with or posed from the Front Bench in another place by Mr. Ian Gilmour. I have not been close enough to this issue. Perhaps it could be argued both ways, but it seems to me that if, as I thought, there is no definition of "political Party" on the Statute Book, and if this is either a definition or—taking the qualification that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has just given—it defines a type of political activity which is to be exempt for the purposes of the Bill, then this is a far-reaching step to take.
  The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, as a teacher of politics, will appreciate the significance of the fact that it will get a footnote in the constitutional history books. So all I am saying is, please, if it has been added for reasons of expediency, which may be good ones, could the noble Lord, between now and Report stage, make sure that this point is carefully looked at by the draftsman and within his own Department, because it may have repercussions for the future. That is the only point I was seeking to make.
  Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: May I make one point. I would not wish to press the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for a reply now, because I think this clause has implications much wider than one might originally have thought. We have been talking about the major Parties, but in an Election the Communist Party stands and ranks—indeed, it is given time on television—as an official Party in the electoral system. There are many wings which are affiliated under different names. Some of them are identified as being of one sex; for example, the Women's League for International Peace or names of that kind. I must beg your Lordships' pardon if I have not got the title absolutely correct,
  1194
  but they are an affiliated body, and I think we need to see just how widely this clause will apply. It may be going beyond the three major Parties, with whose activities and constituency arrangements we are all very familiar. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be able to give us some specific definition before we get to the Report stage.
  Lord WIGG: I would not have troubled the Committee at all had it not been for the intervention of the noble Baroness. I would have been quite content not to speak, because the point I wanted to make was made far better than I could have made it myself by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. The only part of the Bill which interests me concerns the effect of the intervention made in another place by Mr. Ian Gilmour. Here, by a back door, we are going to apply a footnote to various books which are written on constitutional practice, and later on we shall find that the definition of "political Party" is in a sloppy footnote to what is essentially a sloppy Bill. Every atom of my political being revolts against this kind of treatment. This is a subject of fundamental importance, and tile fact that it has come about as a result of an intervention by Mr. Ian Gilmour adds no respectability to it. I do not put him in the front rank of political thinkers; but whether or not it is as a result of his action, the responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Government in general and with the Home Office in particular; and to put this clause into the Bill seems to be nothing short of an outrage so far as I am concerned.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, we have never attempted in this country—I think wisely—to be very precise in our political thinking. We have rather played it by ear and found the truth as we went along. And suddenly to jump into it in this way, in the absolutely certain knowledge that by doing this we shall be opening a door—and there I exempt the noble Baroness from any attempt to cast smears on the Communist Party—to the kind of thing which is bound to happen if this Bill goes through. I will not say any more than that. I hope the Minister responsible will take the matter back to the Home Secretary, who is himself no political novice, and ask him to look at

  1195
  this clause and its implications. May we ask the Home Office to do a little homework and come up with something better than the present wording here.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Further exceptions from ss. 29(1) and 30]:
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 22, line 27, leave out ("prison") and insert ("reception centre provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission")
  The noble Lord said: This may not at first appear to be what it is; namely, a tactical Amendment. It is necessary because of the difficulty over the use of the word "prison", for example. Prison is not caught by Clause 29(1); it is a singularly bad example. Therefore, we are proposing the alternative form of words. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 22, line 33, leave out ("or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of any of its followers")
  The noble Baroness said: This Amendment should be considered in connection with Clause 19 and, if I can take it that the Government will consider this phraseology at the same time, I will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Discriminatory practices]:
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 24, line 14, leave out ("or could result")
  The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which has been put down to tidy up the language used in this clause. Some criticism was made in another place and the Amendment is an attempt to meet that criticism. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 17, at end insert ("or which would be likely to result in such an act of discrimination if the persons to whom it is applied were not all of one sex"—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 22, leave out ("can") and insert ("would")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Discriminatory advertisements]:
  Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 24, line 30, leave out ("or might be")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is exploratory, in a sense. The clause as now drafted reads:
  "(1) It is unlawful to publish or cause to be published an advertisement which indicates, or might reasonably be understood as indicating, an intention by a person to do any act which is or might be unlawful by virtue of Part II or III."
  I should have thought that one thing we would seek to achieve by law is to make it certain. To me the words "or might be" introduce an element of uncertainty which is highly undesirable. I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain what is intended. I beg to move.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am in slight difficulty on this point and for a number of reasons I should like to consider the matter. I will look at it again before Report.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.21 p.m.
  Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 24, line 37, at end insert ("(such as "male or female" or "M/F")")
  The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is very simple. It is to find out what the Government consider would be an indication in an advertisement that

  1197
  the advertiser did not intend to discriminate. It is intended also to be helpful as guidance to advertisers in the same way as the parentheses describing or giving examples of sexual connotations is intended to be helpful. Numerically by far the largest number of advertisements that might fall foul of this clause would be classified advertisements of up to three, four, five or six lines or so, and every letter of a word adds to the cost. The Amendment is suggesting a brief formalised formula that everyone will understand and keep within the law.
  Lord JACQUES: This Amendment is an attempt to clarify the phrase, "an indication to the contrary" which appears in subsection (3). However, it is considered that in this respect the addition is unnecessary. In fact to introduce a word such as "male" or "female" may place limits on the interpretation of what constitutes "an indication to the contrary". We think it would be undesirable to have any such limitation and that there should be a wide choice, for example, "waiter" or "waitress" or "waiter, male or female". There should not be an indication of restriction by the addition of words such as, "male or female". We are rather afraid of the abbreviation M/F for two reasons: first, because it would not necessarily be understood by people; and, secondly, it might be hidden away in a long advertisement. We feel that this Amendment is unnecessary and that advertisers would be left with a wider choice if the Bill were left as it it.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: In that case can the noble Lord tell us how the advertisement is intended to contain "an indication to the contrary"? Can he produce some examples of good indications to the contrary within the meaning of this subsection? We can then see whether they fit into advertisement language and whether it is something which it is reasonble to expect people to insert. If one is not allowed to use a description like "waiter" I see a great difficulty unless there is some indication to show that it could be either a waiter or a waitress.
  Now the noble Lord says that he is not going to allow anybody any shorthand method of fulfilling the requirement to indicate that there is no sexual
  1198
  discrimination. He is putting a certatin amount of difficulty in the way of somebody who wishes to insert a short nondiscriminatory advertisement of the sort my noble friend was talking about for somebody to come and do a job which happens to be of the sort normally known by a name such as is set out in brackets in subsection (3). The noble Lord must see that there is a point here. He is saying that it is perfectly all right without showing how it is practicable to do it.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: May I also suggest to the noble Lord that, if he is right in thinking that people would have difficulty in understanding what M/F meant, he has only to look at the classified advertisements to see the number of recognised abbreviations which appear. But this may easily mean going over to another line with an extra £1 to pay. In these hard times the noble Lord must not disregard this.
  Lord JACQUES: We are saying that the addition of "male" or "female" is unnecessary and could be restrictive. For example, an advertisement for a clerk, male or female, would be quite all right, but there is no need to put that in the Bill. An advertisement for a porter, male or female, would be quite all right; "waiter or waitress" would fit in with the Bill, as indeed would waiter, male or female". We are saying that words such as "male" or "female" are unnecessary and are dangerous in that they might be restrictive in the sense that they would imply that you should use those words and not some other words such as "waiter" or "waitress".
  The other issue concerns the use of M/F, and I have made clear our objections to that—first, that the abbreviation is not generally known as male or female. Secondly, it could be concealed in. a large advertisement in such a way as not to be easily found. This is not a matter on which we feel strongly, but we think it is better to leave the Bill as it is.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: I hope the noble Lord will give a little further consideration to this before the next stage of the Bill. It would not be worth while dividing the House at this time of night, but I feel it is a matter worth

  1199
  considering. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.28 p.m.
  Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
  ("(4) The publisher of an advertisement made unlawful by subsection (1) shall not be subject to any liability under that subsection in respect of the publication if he proves that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under this Act.")
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House, I would suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 39. As the clause stands, people whose business it is to publish advertisements—mainly newspapers, periodicals, magazines, radio and television and cinema proprietors and proprietors of outdoor sites; that is, poster advertising—are caught by the provisions no less than the advertiser himself. As the provision stands, the publisher of an advertisement made unlawful by subsection (1) is not to be subject to any liability under that subsection in respect of the publication if he proves that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know, and had no reason to suppose, that publication would amount to an offence under this Bill.
  This is the present formula under the Trades Descriptions Act which is well understood, and on which publishers, the Press in particular, are accustomed to work. I think it needs a good reason to warrant a change from that position. As the definition of an advertisement for the purposes of this Bill in Clause 77 makes clear, the publisher may be the advertiser himself. The clause goes very wide indeed:
  "'advertisement' includes every form of advertisement, whether to the public or not, and whether in a newspaper or other publication, by television or radio, by display of notices, signs, labels, showcards or goods, by distribution of samples, circulars, catalogues,
  1200
  price lists or other material, by exhibition of pictures, models or films, or in any other way, and references to the publishing of advertisements shall be construed accordingly".
  That is the background of what publishing means in this subsection.
  I should like at the outset to ask one or two questions about this matter. First of all, are those who print circulars on behalf of advertisers, publishers? Are businesses which send them out by post or deliver them from door to door on behalf of advertisers, publishers? Are those who merely print labels or show-cards to the order of the supplier of goods but do not distribute them themselves, publishers for the purposes of the Bill? Presumably the last are not publishers because they do not distribute, but we want to be quite clear what we are talking about.
  When we come to cinema operators, television and radio contractors and outdoor site proprietors, they probably would not find the provisions of the clause as it now stands particularly onerous because they deal with relatively few advertisements and have ample opportunity to study and check them. But publishers of classified advertisements are in an entirely different position. Newspapers handle literally hundreds of classified advertisements every day. It is calculated that there are 40 million to 50 million classified advertisements published every year by the regional Press alone. It may be said—the noble Lord may take this point and I give it to him right away—in that case, all the more need to check that they are lawful. But of course the main and primary responsibility should and must rest with the advertiser himself. The publisher can take only a quick look to see whether an advertisement might reasonably be understood as indicating an intention to do an unlawful act.
  I think all of us would agree that there is an enormous difference between sex discrimination and racial discrimination, for two reasons—and I bring this matter in simply to make the point that we need a separate and different provision here. An intention to do an act of racial discrimination can be much more readily discerned, the more so as this Bill is much more complicated than the Race Relations Act. Secondly, the number of advertisements in which the possibility that racial discrimination might

  1201
  arise is minute by comparison with the large volume of advertisements in which the advertiser might be taken to indicate an intention to do an act of discrimination, whether he had any intention to do the act or not.
  I am not for one moment suggesting that publishers should not be expected to play their part in eliminating sex discrimination. What I am urging is that they should not be expected to do the impossible; and I will explain what I mean. As I understand the clause, if a publisher prints an advertisement which the Commission, or whoever it is—perhaps the court—thinks might reasonably be understood as indicating an intention to discriminate, whether or not there was such an intention on the part of the advertiser, he commits an unlawful act unless he obtains a statement from the advertiser that the discrimination is in fact permitted under the Bill and that it is reasonable for the publisher to rely on that statement. I dare say the noble Lord is aware—I do not know which noble Lord will reply, but I am sure that both noble Lords are well aware—of the immense modernisation in the handling of classified advertisements which has taken place in the last decade. He probably is, and his officials may also have heard of it. But have they taken it sufficiently into account? In the old days one passed an advertisement over the counter, either at the newspaper's offices or at an office or a shop which acted as their agents. Some advertisements came by post. But today a sizeable newspaper will have literally dozens of girls taking advertisements by telephone.
  I should like to say right away that arrangements are being made to train these girls to discern at a glance whether any act of sex discrimination is obviously intended. If they have reason to think an advertisement in any way discriminatory they are to ask the person at the end of the telephone whether he is entitled under the Bill to discriminate; whether the act is lawful. I understand the arrangements are that the girl will then put a mark in the chit which she passes on to the supervisor, and if he is satisfied he would pass it on to the classified advertisement manager (I hasten to add, or manageress) to the effect that she has obtained such an assurance. I would add also that instructions in the Bill's requirements
  1202
  are to be included in all the training sessions organised by regional papers—I cannot speak for the others because I am not aware of their full arrangements, but I am sure they will be doing the same thing.
  The question is by what criteria can the manager decide whether it is reasonable to rely on that statement? He has to decide; otherwise, according to the clause as it now stands, he is committing an unlawful act. Even the newspaper's lawyer would have difficulty in deciding: he would have to assess the reliability of an unknown individual and the probability of his being right in law, and so forth. The alternative would be for the person who called the tele-ad operator to insist on the advertiser giving chapter and verse in writing. If so, this would mean a complicated procedure with delays. Bear in mind that something like 60 per cent. of classified advertisements are. I understand, advertisements for employment. So obviously the newspaper's costs could rise considerably, and to very little purpose because, as I have said, it would still be very difficult to be sure that the publisher would be considered to have been reasonable in relying on the statement. Certainly that difficulty would remain.
  I do not expect the Minister to give a final answer today. I hope he will not try to do so today because I doubt whether he has had time fully to consider the matter. My Amendment proposes that, in place of the complicated arrangements, which I suggest are of doubtful value (unless the noble Lord proposes to accept the Amendment straight away; that would be a different matter) and would give rise to a great deal of trouble and expense, there should be substituted the familiar formula which the Amendment reproduces. Under the Amendment any publisher would be expected to know what the Bill requires, and expected to ensure that his employees in the classified advertisement department know also. If he had reason to suspect that an advertisement was discriminatory he would reject it or ask for an explanation by telephone or in writing.
  But one of the great difficulties of the tele-ad system is that if it were a question of something unlawful having been done, even though the advertiser had given an assurance to the tele-ad operator, it is

  1203
  highly probable that the advertiser would deny ever having given that assurance. So a real problem exists here. What the newspapers fear is that it will be very difficult for them to prove that the employee, who accepted an advertisement for publication, asked for or obtained an oral assurance that it conformed with the Bill. To require a written statement in all cases would seem quite impracticable.
  Amendment No. 39 simply makes the necessary changes in subsection (5) to fit in with Amendment No. 37 and can thus be regarded as consequential. I am suggesting, however, that it is very much better to rely on a well tried and well understood form of words, especiallly during the early stages of the operation of the Bill. If it should prove later that this is not enough, the Secretary of State could alter it under the powers which Clause 75 provides, which could be amended to include Clause 37(4). I know that the Government do not like to amend powers that involve criminal sanctions, but this does not involve a criminal sanction. As I understand it, the publisher is not liable on a criminal charge; it is only the person who gives the statement who is liable on a criminal charge. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that this is the best way to proceed. I beg to move.
  7.41 p.m.
  Lord JACQUES: This Amendment suggests that we are being too tough on the publisher, yet in Amendment No. 38 it is suggested that we are not being tough enough on the publisher. This makes us feel that we have probably struck the right balance. The purpose of the amendment to subsection (4) is to reduce considerably the liability of the publisher of an advertisement which is unlawful. As drafted, subsection (4) affords the publisher of an unlawful advertisement an exemption from liability under subsection (1) if he can prove that he relied upon a statement by the person placing the advertisement that the advertisement was excepted from subsection (1) by subsection (2) and that it was reasonable for him to rely on that statement. This is in recognition of the fact that where the publisher of an advertisement is not also its originator he may be in some difficulty, given the range of exceptions in the Bill, in determining whether or not it is
  1204
  lawful. But it would be quite wrong, and it would thwart the purpose of this important clause, if there were no obligations on a publisher to take reasonable steps to ensure that advertisements are not unlawful. The onus must, in our view, be on the publisher to satisfy himself that he is complying with the law, just as it is the duty of anybody else to ensure that his or her actions are within the law.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: If I may intervene, this is exactly the purpose of the words I have put down in the Amendment. This is why they are in the Trade Descriptions Act. It is the duty of the publisher to assure himself that the advertisement he is accepting is lawful, but only to the extent that he knows it to be lawful or has no reason to suspect that it is unlawful.
  Lord JACQUES: In our view, the Amendment does not go far enough. If it appears that the advertisement is or might be unlawful—I stress the worth "or might be" because in many an advertisement it will not be clear on the surface. For example, an advertisement for a female cook may or may not be lawful. Whether the cook is required for a private house, for a small firm, or for a larger firm, it may be unlawful and it is then for the publisher to make his inquiries. Even though the advertisement may in itself be only an indication of an intention to discriminate, this is a particularly crucial area, given the impact which advertisements have. As the clause stands, the publisher does not incur liability if he ensures that the person placing an advertisement which might be unlawful makes a statement to the effect that it is not unlawful and if the statement is plausible. I do not believe that this is too onerous a burden to impose on the publishers of advertisements, even those who operate at the pace of the daily newspapers. All we are saying is that on the face of it one can see whether an advertisement is unlawful or might be unlawful. Therefore, there is an indication at once that one should make an inquiry and if one receives a plausible reply one is entitled to rely upon it.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would care to look at this

  1205
  clause again. If one analyses the way that the Bill is supposed to work, I am wondering whether or not it ought to be subdivided. Enforcement under Clause 69 is to be carried out only by the Equal Opportunities Commission. This will not be a case where individuals complain about the actions of each other in front of one or other of the tribunals that we have set up for Parts II and III. It will be the Equal Opportunities Commission which will step in. One looks at Clause 69 to see what they can do. They can ask the right court to decide whether there was a contravention of the Act and in a bad case they can also ask for an injunction. If I remember rightly, there is also provision for them to serve a non-discrimination notice under Clause 64.
  With the very greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I should have thought that there is a difference between the person from whom the advertisement originates—who, I should think, is the real culprit if there is, in fact, an act of discrimination—and the channel through which that advertisement is put forward. I am absolutely certain that it is right that a fairly heavy burden should be placed on the person who inserts the advertisement in the first place, whose advertisement it is and who wants the job filled. He should have to fulfil a fairly heavy test. As I understand what my noble friend was saying, he could be a publisher. But if, for instance, it is a newspaper carrying sheets of classified advertisements for jobs one would expect there to be a slightly different test, for the reason of pure volume. It is a very great advantage to people who are looking for jobs that there should be a large number of jobs advertised in the newspapers. One does not want to cut down the opportunities that people have to get the right job that they need because one nuts such onerous burdens on the channels of communication that they are slowed down or they have to take on a colossal number of extra staff.
  As this is to be done through the Commission and presumably will be taken up only in bad cases, I am wondering whether the noble Lord may consider that it would be right to subdivide this clause. I am speaking off-the-cuff at the moment, having listened to what my noble friend has said. If one is too strict—this is something which the noble Lord, Lord
  1206
  Houghton of Sowerby, has been saying with great cogency throughout the debate in Committee—and takes too onerous a view of what should be done under the Bill, with the purposes of which I entirely agree, and makes the whole thing ridiculous by being too restrictive and onerous and making it too difficult for people to stick to the rules, one will bring the whole thing into disrepute. I put this forward to the noble Lord so that he may consider it. I do not suppose that the matter will rest here today, and in view of the remedies which will lie in the hands of the Equal Opportunities Commission I should like the noble Lord to examine whether or not he could simplify it a little.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has made a very important point, because the responsibilities for the advertiser and for the publisher in these respects are quite different. As I said before, I am not saying that the publisher must not take care. He must make certain, so far as it is possible, that the law is not broken and that unlawful tasks are not done. If I may say so, I regret the noble Lord's final sentence. He said that if you get a plausible reply from anybody to whom you put a question you are entitled to rely upon it. Personally, I do not think that that goes far enough, nor do I think that it is what the clause actually says. The courts would not necessarily say that it was reasonable for you to rely upon a reply because it was plausible. This is part of the difficulty. We have to make certain that innocent people are not caught out on matters of this kind. They do their best, but the publisher cannot do more than his best to find out whether or not the proposed act would be unlawful.
  So I hope the noble Lord will take careful account of what my noble friend has said and will also see whether on examination it would not be better to rest on the existing formula. He has not said for a moment that the formula in the Trade Descriptions Act and other Acts is inadequate; he has not said that it is working badly; he has not said that it is not sufficient for this particular case. I have gone out of my way to assure him that so far the newspapers and magazines are taking this very seriously and that they are setting up procedures

  1207
  which are the best that can be designed in the circumstances. I think it would be quite wrong if, having done that, they were to be caught out by somebody saying that it was not reasonable in the particular circumstances to rely on a statement when they had followed all their usual procedures and done their best in the case. I hope the noble Lord will look at this further.
  Lord JACQUES: From what I said yesterday—and said repeatedly—I am obviously sympathetic to the point of view put forward that this can be pushed too far and become ridiculous, and that too much onus of responsibility can be put on people who are secondary in the matter. I accept that immediately, but we think a publisher should have some responsibility for the advertisements which he publishes. We are putting the main onus on the advertiser.
  Let us look at the position of the publisher: it can be seen at a glance whether an advertisement is unlawful, or might be. I have given the example of the advertisement for the female cook. That advertisement may be unlawful or it may not, depending upon whether it is a small firm, whether it is for a private household or whether it is for a large firm. The answer is different in each case. We are saying that if you get an advertisement which is, or might be, unlawful, the publisher, before publishing, should make inquiries from the advertiser.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If I may intervene for a moment, that is just where I think we are in danger of going too far. I will put a possible solution to the noble Lord to see what he thinks of it. Supposing I am the proprietor of a newspaper and I wish to publish sheets of classified advertisements for jobs. I will tell you what I do in order to meet this. I put at the top of the heading of the column a description of how to put in a classified advertisement and give the telephone number, and then I say:
  "Advertisements are accepted only on the basis of an implied warranty that they do not offend against the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and are accepted on the basis that a deemed statement has been made to comply with Section 37(4)(a)."
  Upon that basis I would put the whole onus upon the originator of the advertisement,
  1208
  and I would argue that it was perfectly reasonable for me to rely on that statement because I had drawn it to the attention of the man or the woman when they were putting in the advertisement, and as it had been drawn to their attention why should I not rely upon it?
  This completely disposes of the whole of the noble Lord's argument because, of course, the newspaper then has to do absolutely nothing. They do not even have to check the advertisement. If this is made too difficult and it is made a requirement that they should go back to the original advertiser and say: "Can you tell us which subsection of the Act it is in fact lawful under because we are not very sure?", the answer is that they will not accept the advertisement; it will not appear and there is a perfectly good job lost. That is the sort of practical difficulty that I think we shall get into unless we look at this rather carefully.
  Lord JACQUES: I think the noble Viscount has put forward a suggestion that ought to be examined. Incidentally, I very much doubt whether what he is suggesting would fit into the Bill as it stands.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am prepared to argue.
  Lord JACQUES: I would rather be on the other side on that one! I do not think that is the question. The suggestion that has been made is so reasonable and so useful that we might reconsider the wording of the Bill. I will give an undertaking that we will look at this, but I must point out to the Committee that in a few moments we are coming to an Amendment where the proposers take exactly the opposite point of view and it may well be that at the end of the day the Government will take the view—
  Baroness SEEAR: It might help the noble Lord if I said in advance that I do not intend to move the next Amendment.
  Lord JACQUES: That is extremely helpful. I now have no hesitation in saying that we will look at this point and return to it later.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his assurance, and on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may just ask why the words "it was effected" appear in line 4 instead of the words "he acted", which are the words used in other parts of the Bill. Why are special words used in this case rather than the words used in other parts of the Bill?
  Lord JACQUES: Since the question refers to other parts of the Bill I should, of course, like to look at those other parts before I give an answer. I promise to give an answer as soon as possible.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Liability of employers and principals]:
  7.58 p.m.
  Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 25, line 37, at end insert ("or subordinate").
  The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee I will move Amendment No. 40 and speak to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 40 is in the nature of a probing Amendment. The responsibility for a breach rests not only with the employer but with, the clause says, "an employee of his". In many circumstances the responsibility lies with the manager and that manager puts the responsibility on to a junior. But that junior is not an employee of the manager who has delegated the responsibility; he is a subordinate. This is why it is suggested that we should insert the words 'or subordinate' to cover a manager delegating to his junior as well as an employer delegating to his employee. I beg to move.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Baroness pointed out, we are discussing the use of the term "or subordinates". What she has said has indicated that most subordinates will of course be employees, and where they are not they are likely to be agents. If it is argued that there is a third category of people who are not caught by any of these terms—and I do not think frankly that there is—they surely are caught by Clause 38 of the Bill which makes it
  "unlawful for a person—(a) who has authority over another person, or …"
  1210
  I will not bore the Committee by reading out Clause 38, but if the noble Baroness looks at that I think it will in some degree reassure her. We have looked at this, but I think it is better to maintain a clear distinction between principals and agents on one side and employers and employees on another. I think the addition of the word "subordinate" would in no way be helpful to the cause in which the noble Baroness is interested, and indeed would cause some confusion.
  Baroness SEEAR: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I am still not absolutely certain. I am thinking, for example, of the personnel manager, and it will be very much in personnel departments where this will arise. It has, of course, arisen under the Race Relations Act. The personnel manager who is responsible for handling the whole selection procedure, the vital stages of the procedure in relation to this Bill, has a number of subordinates who do the interviewing and talk to people and see the applications. It has happened not infrequently in matters of racial discrimination that someone quite low down the line who has racist tendencies has talked in a way which is undoubtedly a breach of the Act, although quite contrary to the intention of that person's boss, who is himself an employee. Who, then, is the responsible person? The company has delegated the selection responsibility to an employee, the personnel manager; the personnel manager delegates the handling of applications and the handling of the selection procedure to a junior personnel officer. The personnel manager has no intention of discriminating, but the personnel officer, who is what is known now as a "male chauvinist pig", proceeds to discriminate. Who is responsible? The personnel officer is not an employee of the personnel manager; he is a subordinate.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think the answer to the noble Baroness is Clause 38.
  Baroness SEEAR: If the noble Lord thinks that is satisfactory, I will accept it and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Charities]:
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: As we have got to the end of Part IV, and I observe the noble and learned Lord, full of views about the maximum number of judges, awaiting his turn, might I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether we could have an indication as to how long we are going on with the Committee? I think we have made good progress. Although the remainder of the Amendments on the Marshalled List—largely because I have drafted some of them—look rather lengthy, I do not think there is an enormous amount of substance in some of them. We might perhaps contemplate resuming the House at this stage.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am always anxious to follow the noble Viscount in any suggestion that he makes, and I am sure he is speaking for a large number of noble Lords who have laboured long on this important Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to make a little further progress; I am not quite so content as the noble Viscount with the amount of progress we have made. I think he would agree that a number of the clauses and Amendments to which we are about to come are of a fairly technical character. I should like really to get to Clause 50, and I think we could do that within half an hour or so.
  8.3 p.m.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 26, line 30, at end insert—
  ("(3) In the application of this section in England and Wales—

  (a) "charitable instrument" means an enactment or other instrument passed or made for charitable purposes, or an enactment or other instrument so far as it relates to charitable purposes;

  (b) "charitable purposes" means purposes which are exclusively charitable according to the law of England and Wales.

  (4) in this application of this section to Scotland "charitable instrument" means an enactment or instrument passed or made by or on behalf of a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only.")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is largely clarificatory. It has three purposes. First, it brings the definition of "charitable instrument" out of Clause 77, which contains general interpretation
  1212
  provisions, and puts it in Clause 42, which is the only clause in which the term "charitable instrument" is used. This will make the provision more self-contained and easier to refer to. Secondly, the definition is, we hope, set out rather more clearly; in particular, Scotland now has its own subsection. Thirdly, the Scottish definition is expanded slightly to ensure that, like the English definition, it applies to charities established by private Acts of Parliament as well as other charities. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Communal accommodation]:
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendment No. 43. As the clause stands at the moment it is, I fear, defective in that it requires steps to be taken to compensate a woman if she is refused a benefit only where that benefit consists of accommodation. This Amendment seeks to put right that error.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 32, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendment No. 44.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 44, at end insert—
  ("( ) Neither subsection (3) nor subsection (6) is a defence to an act of sex discrimination under Part II unless such arrangements as are reasonably practicable are made to compensate for the detriment caused by the discrimination; but in considering under subsection (6)(b) whether the use of communal accommodation could lawfully be refused (in a case based on Part II), it shall be assumed that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with as respects subsection (3).")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move Amendment No. 45.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 45 insert the following new clause:
  Discriminatory training by certain bodies
  ".—(1) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in relation to

  1213
  particular work by a training body in or in connection with—

  (a) affording women only, or men only, access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work, or

  (b) encouraging women only, or men only, to take advantage of opportunities for doing that work,

  where it appears to the training body that at any time within the 12 months immediately preceding the doing of the act there were no persons of the sex in question doing that work in Great Britain or the number of persons of that sex doing the work in Great Britain was comparatively small.
  (2) Where in relation to particular work it appears to a training body that although the condition for the operation of subsection (1) is not met for the whole of Great Britain it is met for an area within Great Britain, nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by the training body in, or in connection with—

  (a) affording persons who are of the sex in question, and who appear likely to take up that work in that area, access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work, or

  (b) encouraging persons of that sex to take advantage of opportunities in the area for doing that work.

  (3) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by a training body in, or in connection with, affording persons access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, where it appears to the training body that those persons are in special need of training by reason of the period for which they have been discharging domestic or family responsibilities to the exclusion of regular employment.
  The discrimination in relation to which this subsection applies may result from confining the training to persons who have been discharging domestic or family responsibilities, or from the way persons are selected for training, or both.
  (4) In this section "training body" means—

  (a) a person mentioned in section 14(2)(a) or (b), or

  (b) any other person (other than a body mentioned in section 22), being a person designated for the purposes of this section in an order made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State,

  and a person may be designated under paragraph (b) for the purposes of subsections (11 and (2) only, or of subsection (3) only, or for all those subsections."—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Is the noble Lord not going to tell us how the new clause fits in with the existing Clause 46, if we leave out these two subsections? I think what the noble Lord is doing is subdividing this, and since these will be Amendments that go
  1214
  back to another place I think a word of explanation would be helpful. This is the part where we have the positive discrimination in favour of women. It is obviously an important subject which ought to be described.
  Lord JACQUES: I agree. The bulk of what is going into the new clause is being transferred from Clause 46 by Amendment No. 46, but we are inserting a new concession, if I may put it that way, to women. We have now concluded that there is one more area where training bodies should be able to make special provision of benefit to women, without fear of being in breach of the Act. This is the area of special training for persons who, for domestic or family reasons, have been off the labour market for some considerable period of time. Very largely, this pattern occurs where a woman gives up work to bring up her family, and later, once her children are no longer completely dependent, wishes to return to work. Other women enter the labour market after a long period spent caring for sick and elderly parents. The woman coming back to the labour market may find that her old skills are no longer in demand, or need modifying, or it may be that she could benefit from a more general course which would help her to readjust to the pattern of working life after being so long out of employment. In any case, she will have special problems which result from her absence from the labour market. Under the Bill as it stands, a course for women returning to the labour market would be clearly unlawful, and the purpose of the Amendment is to make it lawful.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think that is very useful. I am still trying to find where it refers to people who have been away for a long time and want to come back to their trade. I expect that if I look long enough I shall be able to unravel the drafting. The noble Lord has, of course, dealt with an area of considerable importance. It is exactly within this region where one gets the waste of talent of people who were subject to a very expensive and very extensive training at an earlier stage of their career. They go out of the profession or the job, because they are bringing up their families, or looking after a dependant. Plainly, the expertise goes on developing, and at the end of the time

  1215
  they wonder whether they are fit to go back, and whether they have sufficiently up-to-date techniques and skills. It is just those people who are very welcome back indeed, and who, at the present moment, are often hesitant to come because they think they may be in some way deficient. If the noble Lord is providing for them, I think he is greatly improving the Bill.
  Baroness VICKERS: May I ask whether the training facilities will be in the neighbourhood of where the person is living? I have great experience of this problem. For instance, when people are sent from Plymouth to Bristol they get their training and then they come back and there is no job for them. They are disappointed, and it is a waste of their training. With these women in particular will there be, as far as possible, training near their homes in those skills which will enable them to find a job? Thousands of pounds have been lost where people have had training—and this includes blind people, too—and have not been able to obtain a job afterwards. Can the noble Lord give some assurance that this matter will be looked into?
  Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask whether in this context training includes retraining?
  Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I ask where the money is coming from to do the training? Though I think that the new clause is excellent from the point of view of training both men and women who require new skills, I should like to know whether there is money available in order to put that new clause into operation, because this is tremendously important.
  Lord JACQUES: The subsection concerned is subsection (3). Whether or not the training courses would be local depends entirely on economics. There are many occasions when, from the point of view of pure economics, you just cannot have a local class because there are not sufficient numbers to attend. The intention is to make it local so far as possible, but with some regard to economics. For example, in Plymouth there should not be any great difficulty, but in one of the smaller villages in Devon
  1216
  there would be considerable difficulty. It will not always be local, but certainly in urban areas the size of Plymouth it would be extremely likely to be local. The clause is pretty restrictive. The new clause will apply only to Industrial Training Boards and the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies. It will apply to other bodies only if they are designated for the purpose of an order made on behalf of the Secretary of State, so that some control is being exercised. The concession is made, but it is a controlled concession.
  Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: Would not my noble friend agree that the polytechnics being set up in so many parts of the country could be used for this purpose? Very often, when a woman gets married and leaves her employment, she becomes a different person, more mature, and develops different interests because of her children. This might mean that we would not need segregated buildings, which we call training or rehabilitation centres for women, and the courses could be run along with further education in the polytechnics and in the broad concept of what we call education.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: While the noble Lord is contemplating that, may I ask him why we have these words in subsection (4)(b):
  "any other other person (other than a body mentioned in section 22)",
  because in Clause 22 we have the table, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness's polytechnic may not be in class 5:
  "Establishment … providing full-time or part-time education, …"
  as long as it has been designated under Clause 24. Clause 24 provides for it to be a polytechnic, among other things. In those circumstances, why is a polytechnic excluded from being a training body under the new clause we are dealing with as Amendment No. 45?
  Lord JACQUES: I am authorised to say that, so far as the use of polytechnics is concerned, we accept the suggestion, and everything will be done in order to get economical use of such buildings for this purpose. So far as the contradiction is concerned, I should prefer to look at that and write afterwards. I do not think I could reply to that offhand.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Certain discriminatory training etc.]:
  Lord JACQUES: I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Jacques.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
  8.16 p.m.
  Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
  Trade unions etc.: elective bodies
  " .—(1) If an organisation to which section 12 applies comprises a body the membership of which is wholly or mainly elected, nothing in section 12 shall render unlawful provision which ensures that a minimum number of persons of one sex are members of the body—

  (a) by reserving seats on the body for persons of that sex, or

  (b) by making extra seats on the body available (by election or co-option or otherwise) for persons of that sex on occasions when the number of persons of that sex in the other seats is below the minimum,

  where in the opinion of the organisation the provision is in the circumstances needed to secure a reasonable lower limit to the number of members of that sex serving on the body, and nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in order to give effect to such a provision.
  (2) This section shall not be taken as making lawful—

  (a) discrimination in the arrangements for determining the persons entitled to vote in an election of members of the body, or otherwise to choose the persons to serve on the body, or

  (b) discrimination in any arrangements concerning membership of the organisation itself."

  The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of extensions of principles to the Bill which my noble friend Lord Harris promised on Second Reading. In Clause 46, which your Lordships have just agreed, the Bill provides that trade unions and other bodies to whom Clause 12 applies may take special steps to encourage persons of one sex to become members, or to train persons of one sex for posts of any kind within the organisation and encourage them to take advantage of opportunities for holding such posts, where that sex has in the past been under-represented among the members or
  1218
  officials of the organisation. In effect, this takes account of the fact that in many unions women may need some special encouragement if they are to overcome any diffidence and any assumption that union affairs are more naturally the preserve of men, and come to play a full and equal part within the bodies that represent them. Clause 46A seeks to take this principle one step further, by allowing the reservation or creation of places for persons of a particular sex on committees, delegate conferences and other elected bodies within the organisation.
  A number of unions have taken steps designed both to encourage women to participate fully in union affairs and to ensure that women are seen to be working alongside men on the decision-making bodies of the organisation. For example, the National Union of Public Employees has recently enlarged its Executive Committee and set aside five seats for women members. Naturally, women will also have access to the other seats on the Executive if they succeed in being elected (and Clause 12 would make any other arrangement unlawful), but the Executive will at least contain a minimum of five women members. The Government feel that for this Bill to force those unions who have chosen this means of encouraging women's participation to abolish those arrangements would be a retrograde step of no benefit to either sex. Should other unions choose to follow the example of the few who have made such arrangements, we feel they should be allowed to do so. I beg to move.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I have now forgotten what it was the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, said was to happen about the teachers on an Amendment which is not on the Order Paper, which is apparently to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, but which will be accepted by the Government. My recollection nevertheless is that it was something temporary and I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has not told us about the consequential Amendment No. 70 to Clause 75, which enables the Secretary of State by Affirmative Instrument to amend this clause. Can the noble Lord tell us a little more about this?
  I have a strong impression from reading the Official Report of yesterday's Committee stage debate about the single-sex

  1219
  unions that anything we are likely to achieve is to be on a temporary basis and that it is not the policy of the Government, at any rate permanently, to provide a special entrenched position for women, because the whole object of the exercise is to give women the opportunity and then allow them to take it. In the context of teachers it was said, "Here is a chance for women to come up through the unions on a two-sex basis, put in their claims and get the top jobs". I am sure it is absolute sense to do what this Amendment allows; that is, for a period of time to provide that women shall be allowed a special look-in by means of reserved seats. But I do not see this as a permanent feature of the sex discrimination scene. That is exactly the contrary of what this Bill is intended to provide.
  If the noble Lord's consequential Amendment to Clause 75 is to allow the repeal of this clause at some stage when it is thought that the operation has been successful and that women have been given the opportunities through the trade unions to get to the positions that they deserve, then I would be happy to support it. But that is not what it says, and all we do is to amend it. Would the noble Lord tell us what Amendment is anticipated and what is the point of putting in a provision to allow this new clause to be amended and how it fits in? Is it to be a permanent feature of this legislation or is it looked on simply as a temporary one, because if it is a permanent one. I look upon it with a certain amount of disfavour.
  Lord JACQUES: It is intended that in the course of time we should overcome this problem. What we are concerned about, first of all, is that we should not frustrate those organisations which have attempted to encourage women to take an active part by not making this provision. We hope that in the course of time it will not be necessary to continue this provision. I do not know of any special provision in the Bill for repealing the provision, but I stand to be corrected. I do not know of any provision in the Bill which would mean that this could be repealed by, for example, an order.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Perhaps the noble Lord would care to
  1220
  look at Amendment No. 70, because he will see that it is proposed to insert this in Clause 75, so we get the power by Statutory Instrument subject to Affirmative Resolution to amend this clause. It is added to the list of clauses that can be amended. In what way is it proposed to amend it, and if it is to be amended rather than repealed, does not that run contrary to the spirit of the Bill? If the noble Lord had not taken the power he needs to repeal it when it is no longer necessary, would he not think it would he a good idea to do so?
  Baroness SEEAR: I support what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has said. In all the cases where we have attempted to make some positive provision for women we have been careful to argue that this should be for a limited period only because, as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, said earlier, any other such provision is contrary to the spirit of this whole legislation, which is that men and women should get equal treatment with no discrimination either way and that women should win their place on their own merits and not by having special seats reserved for them.
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Would the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, like to look at this again? I do not wish to hold him to anything this evening. Here we are discussing the last Amendment before we conclude tonight's proceedings, and I wish to keep the spirit of the debate as friendly as it has been. However, I think we have a point here and if the noble Lord will simply rise and say he will look at the issue again, we will allow the Amendment to go through perfectly peacefully.
  Lord JACQUES: I should like to look at it again because Amendment No. 70 is a little more complicated than it appeared to be.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think at this stage it would be appropriate to move a Motion which will, at least temporarily, lead to some popularity in the Committee.
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Hear, hear!
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am glad that I carry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, with me. We have made substantial progress in the last twenty-five minutes. At eight o'clock I prophesied that we would deliberate for a further half hour. In the event, I made an error of five minutes, largely through the generosity of the noble Viscount, and at this stage I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JUDGES ORDER 1975
  8.26 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move, That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1975, laid before the House on 19th June, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Order is to raise the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal from 14 to 16. I emphasise the word "maximum" because the Order does not commit either the House or me to any particular appointments and I shall recommend an appointment only when I am satisfied of the need. Nevertheless, the state of business in the Court of Appeal is such that I think it will in fact be necessary to recommend two further appointments if the House gives me the necessary authority.
  I will explain briefly why it is necessary to seek the approval of the House for this Order. Under Section 1(1)(b)(i) of the Administration of Justice Act 1968, the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal, in England and Wales, was fixed at 13. Section 1(2) and (3) of that Act provided, however, that the maximum might be increased by Order in Council subject to the Draft Order being laid before Parliament and approved by Affirmative Resolution of each House.
  1222
  The maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal was so increased from 13 to 14 in July 1970 and there are now 14 Lords Justices in post. It is accordingly necessary for me to promote this Order if further full-time appointments to the Court of Appeal are to be made.
  The need for the Order is the steady increase in work in recent years of the Court of Appeal, which is now one of the busiest courts in the country. I pay tribute to the judges who man it for the way they have carried out their very heavy burden of work. As your Lordships will know, the Court of Appeal deals with both civil and criminal appeals. A normal sitting of the court comprises three judges—in criminal cases usually the Lord Chief Justice, or one Lord Justice and two High Court Judges; in civil cases the Master of the Rolls and two Lords Justices, or three Lords Justices. At any one time three Lords Justices are normally occupied on criminal business, leaving 11 and the Master of the Rolls himself available for civil business. Until last autumn four divisions usually sat on civil business but over the winter, in order to try to cope with the work, this has had to be increased to five.
  The additional judge-power needed to staff the extra division of the Court of Appeal has been found by inviting retired judges to sit almost continuously and by calling upon other judges who could be spared from their normal work either in the High Court or the Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House. Over the past few months this outside help has been equivalent to two extra judges sitting full-time and I am indeed grateful to those who have come forward to help, especially from retirement. But these arrangements have inevitably led to a want of continuity in sittings and to occasional lost half-days.
  It is not satisfactory that the business of the Court of Appeal should be managed indefinitely in this way, nor would it be safe to assume that it would be practicable to do so. Both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the court have been faced with considerable extra work. In the Civil Division, following a relatively stable period between 1969 and 1972, the number of appeals rose to 1,108 in 1973 and, in 1974, to 1,177, compared

  1223
  with an average of 930 in each of the four previous years. This marked upward trend has continued in the period up to 23rd May this year, with 514 appeals set down, as against 444 in the corresponding period a year ago and 396 in 1973. Happily, the 567 appeals outstanding at the end of May this year were about the same as last year, but this was achieved only by the court sitting, as I have said, in five divisions instead of the usual four.
  One reason for the increase in the number of outstanding appeals has been an increase in the average hearing time from one day per case in 1970 to nearly 1·3 days at the end of 1972. Though the average for 1973 and 1974 was lower than 1972, there is nevertheless a clear indication that appeal hearings are taking longer—perhaps as much as 15 per cent. longer—than a few years ago. This trend is appearing in other courts, too. There appears to he no simple explanation for it.
  There have been two other features of the greater workload of the Court of Appeal in civil cases in recent years. One is the increase in the number of final appeals in cases heard in the county court, which rose from 209 in 1972 to 289 in 1974—a rise of more than 38 per cent. The other feature of the heavier workload has been the increase from 128 cases in 1972 to 207 cases in 1974 in interlocutory appeals in divorce cases, both in the county court and in the Family Division. These are often cases involving the custody of children and requiring urgent attention. To cope with them, the Master of the Rolls has sometimes had to man the court with only two judges. Though this is undesirable, it has been essential in order to get the work done.
  The number of outstanding criminal appeals has also risen in the past 12 months, I regret to say. It has gone up from 1,267 at the end of March 1974 to 1,682 this year—an increase of 33 per cent. This is the fourth successive quarter during which the number of outstanding appeals in the Criminal Division has risen. Although I recognise the need to make no more full-time judicial appointments than are absolutely necessary—and I am sure that my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will agree with that proposition
  1224
  —I should be failing in my responsibility for the administration of the higher courts if I were not to take reasonable steps to ensure that appellants, both civil and criminal, have their appeals heard as soon as can conveniently be arranged. This applies particularly in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal where the appellant may be in custody. I do not believe that the court will be able to meet the demands which are being put upon it without at least one, and probably a second, full-time appointment in the near future. I therefore hope that the House will agree that it is appropriate to increase the maximum number of ordinary judges from 14 to 16 in the Court of Appeal, as proposed in the Order. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1975, laid before the House on 19th June, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure the House would be wise to accede to the noble and learned Lord's request, melancholy though the necessity undoubtedly is, and sad though the reasons for it are. It fell to my lot, when I was occupying the position of the noble and learned Lord, to appoint more judges than any previous Lord Chancellor in history. I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord is going to break my record. That is no fault of his. One thing we do know—and I believe it is worth saying—is that it is much cheaper for the public and for the users of the courts to have judges occasionally not fully occupied, than it is to have people waiting in queues outside the courts for their cases to come on, at their own expense. That is justice deferred. It is also justice denied, or at any rate denied except at an exorbitant cost. I am sure that this House and, I hope, another place, will accede to this request.
  The only alternative to doing what the noble and learned Lord asks, if the work continues to mount, will be to have a number of additional puisnes and to man the Court of Appeal with additional puisnes. That is not satisfactory. Some—at any rate, in the Queen's Bench and Family Divisions—have to go on circuit and what is important if this backlog of appeals continues to mount is to have a

  1225
  regular corps of Lords Justices to try them. One thing which I was afraid of has not, I believe, happened as yet, though I was beginning to be concerned about it towards the end of my time as Lord Chancellor. It was that this constant drain on the resources of the Bar would either cause litigants to lose adequate representation in court, or else would reduce the standard of judges upon whom we depend for the administration of our cases. Both are serious. To take a simple example, one case which occupied public attention a great deal was the thalidomide case. I was obliged to take for the Bench counsel after counsel who had been professionally engaged in that case. I had no option, because the alternative would have been to appoint judges of a quality not equal to those whom I chose.
  But all this is very disturbing. The Bar is a very small profession. There are only 3,000 members practising, or thereabouts—the noble and learned Lord will know the exact figure now. We started with 2,500 when I began in 1970, and the increase has not been wholly adequate to the demand. All this is extremely worrying. To get a mature member of the Bar who is ripe for the Bench, one cannot just pick him off a bush like a gooseberry. Such people have to be matured by practice over a period of years, and we are still suffering from the period before the introduction of legal aid when the Bar was starved of work. The consequence was that many promising figures left the profession. They cannot be replaced now. What we are taking is what we have. I believe that it says a very great deal for the Bar and the Bench that we have not so far reduced the quality of the High Court, and I feel that we ought to recognise that fact.
  This cannot go on for ever. We must increase the supply of barristers to replenish the Bar in future years, if the increase of work is to continue. This must occupy the mind of the noble and learned Lord, and indeed of the Treasurers of the Inns and the leaders of the profession generally. The provision of accommodation and training are matters of constantly increasing worry to those of us who are concerned with these matters, and the noble and learned Lord is fully aware of the situation. It is very gratifying to know that in the Court of Appeal
  1226
  we are not, in these stringent times, incurring any additional expense over the creation of puisnes, because at a very early stage in the history of the Court of Appeal those worthy gentlemen were offered the alternative of a higher rate of pay or a Privy Councillorship and, to their infinite credit, they chose the higher honour of the two. I have never known why. I support the noble and learned Lord in what he said.
  Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take this opportunity to say something about the appointment of women judges? As my noble and learned friend knows, only two of the 97 judges in the High Court are women, and only two of the 161 QCs appointed between 1970 and 1974 are women. We all know that the situation cannot be transformed overnight. But if my noble and learned friend could make a positive statement about policy in this field, and if young women barristers could be given hope and encouragement, and could be persuaded that their chances now are as great as those of their male colleagues, perhaps in 10 or 15 years' time we might have in our courts as many women judges as men judges.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his support of the Order. He touched on matters which are clearly of concern to me. I am happy to say that the drain on the resources of the Bar has not reached danger point. I agree with him that the appointments to the High Court Bench, and indeed to the other branches of the Judiciary, have been maintained at an appropriate high level of quality.
  The question raised by my noble friend Lady Stewart of Alvechurch—about which she was kind enough to give me advance warning—is of course important. But I can assure her immediately that I and my predecessor, and his predecessor, have been conscious of the desirability of having women on the Bench at each level—the High Court at the highest, and the lay magistracy at the base. Appointments must—and she will readily agree with this—be on merit; and in the end the limiting factor so far as the appointment of women to judicial office

  1227
  is concerned, is that the proportion of women among the total number of practising barristers is still comparatively small. The noble and learned Lord was venturing to comment upon the number of barristers in practice. In February of this year the number was 3,439, and of those only 272 were women; 7·8 per cent. as compared with 7·5 per cent. in the previous year, so it has gone up a little proportionately.
  Those are the basic facts which limit the source of supply to the Judiciary. Quite a number of the 272 women barristers had not been called long enough to be eligible for judicial appointments anyway; which in most cases require a minimum of experience at the Bar. Nevertheless, as I said, I have certainly—and my predecessors have, too—appointed a number of women to judicial office, and of course I intend to continue to do so. The count, if I may somewhat irreverently put it that way, of women in judicial office at the present time is as follows. On the High Court Bench, there are two, Mrs. Justice Lane, who was appointed to the Family Division in 1965 having been promoted from the county court Bench, and Mrs. Justice Heilbron, who was appointed in October 1974, having formerly been appointed a recorder by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in 1972.
  As to the Circuit Bench, there are four women circuit judges, one of whom was appointed in 1971, two in 1972 and the fourth in 1973. Among the stipendiary magistrates, two women have been appointed. I have just appointed the first woman Family Division registrar. Five women recorders have been appointed and of the 26,000 lay justices 9,100 are women, and, if I may say so, my noble friend Lady Stewart of Alvechurch is one of the most distinguished among them.
  That is the count. I agree that in relation to the numbers of judicial appointments it is still small, but the number is increasing and, as I have said, applying the test of ability to do the job, I am very conscious of the desirability of having qualified women on the Bench at each level. I hope that that will be reasonably reassuring to my noble friend.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really saying—and I am not suggesting anything—that the discrimination lies in education, and in the pattern and customs in education for the very small number of judges, and that he takes no responsibility himself for the Judiciary in this respect?
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not saying anything of the kind; indeed, that is not so. But the fact is that for reasons which, perhaps, it is not fully appropriate to go into at this stage, the Bar has not been attractive to women as a profession. Whether it is because of the difficulties of the calling or the problems it has given rise to in the past, I must confess readily that there was a reluctance, perhaps, in the Temple to admit women barristers as members of Chambers. But that reluctance has broken down a good deal in recent years, certainly in my time at the Bar. Initially it was regarded with horror, then it moved to a state of grudging acceptance and now it is at a state of full acceptance as equals at the Bar. Women find other more useful and attractive occupations upon which to embark. I have not made a survey of potential entrants, but there is certainly no lack of encouragement on my part.
  As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the dreadful problem that is being met at the moment at the Bar is that of accommodation. We are all—the Inns of Court and myself—grappling with that. But I can assure my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that there is every interest and concern in my mind that this progress should be advanced. But she may well answer better than I can why it is that women find better things to do than become barristers at law.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (SPECIAL ADVANCES) ORDER 1975
  8.48 p.m.
  Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1975, laid before the House on 24th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1975, laid before the

  1229
  House on 24th June, be approved. If the draft Order is approved, it will enable a building society to advance to an individual up to £20,000 instead of £13,000 as a present, without the society having to treat the advance as a "special advance" for the purpose of the Building Societies Act 1962. Special advances are defined in the Act as all mortgage advances to companies and mortgage advances above a specified limit to individuals. If at the end of its financial year a building society has made special advances in excess of 10 per cent. of its total lending, restrictions are placed on the issue of further special advances. The purpose of this arrangement is to provide an assurance to investors that building society lending will be predominantly directed towards normal owner occupiers.
  In the light of representations by the building societies, the Government have now agreed that £20,000 is an appropriate lower limit for special advances rather than the figure of £13,000 which was set in 1971. This will provide a reasonable degree of freedom to those societies, particularly in the South-East, whose clients include purchasers of relatively expensive houses. Most mortgages are well below the present limit so we do not anticipate the increase to have a detectable effect on house prices. I invite the House to approve the Order. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1975, laid before the House on 24th June, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
  Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we support the Order in its intention. The only commentary that I think must be made on this is whether making this proposal will have an inflationary effect on house prices. We feel, certain that this is not the Governments intention. Nevertheless, by increasing this limit there is the underlying suggestion that it is adding a certain inflationary effect. Notwithstanding that point it will clearly assist both the would-be purchasers and the general good health of the house-purchasing business in this country. Therefore we support the Order. It is a melancholy fact that only as short a time ago as 1971 the limit was £13,000 and that an increase to £20,000 in so short a period has proved necessary. Nevertheless, we recognise what has appeared in the trade press recently; since the beginning of
  1230
  the year house prices have increased by no less than 3 per cent. and probably more than that. We are aware of the situation and it is therefore clearly the Government's duty to take powers under Section 21(6) of the Building Societies Act in this regard.
  Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would point out that the amount of £20,000 proposed is much less than it would have been had we followed average house prices. If we had followed them, the £13,000 in 1971 would now have been £27,700, so we have applied some restrictions. Secondly, I would point out that the average mortgage even in the South-East is well below the limit and is far below the special advance limit of £20,000. The average building society mortgage in Greater London is £8,647, in the rest of the South-East it is £8,147 and in the whole country it is much smaller. I hope that information is helpf
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  APPROPRIATION (No. 2) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
  8.52 p.m.
  Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 27th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be approved. This Order is being made by normal procedure under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
  This Order appropriates the balance of the 1975–76 Main Estimates, the Vote on Account of 1975–76 having been appropriated in March this year, and also certain sums arising out of Excess Votes for the financial year 1973–74. The total sum to be appropriated by the Order is almost £512 million of which £1·6 million relates to the Excess Votes. Main Estimates provision for 1975–76 amounts to over £826 million, an increase of some £101 million over total Estimates provision in 1974–75.
  The major increases relate to teachers' salaries and grants to the Education and Library Boards for which an additional

  1231
  £26·6 million are required very largely as a result of pay and price movements; industrial development, for which an extra £34·6 million are provided including £25 million for financial assistance to Harland and Wolff; and compensation payments to electricity and gas undertakings in Northern Ireland to wipe out losses suffered as a result of compliance with Government prices policy, for which additional provision of £19·8 million is included.
  The Excess Votes arose on Class VIII No. 1, Department of the Environment and Class VIII No. 3, Roads Services. They have been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which has recommended that the necessary sums should be made available. The circumstances in which the Excesses occurred are set out in the Statement of Excesses which has been placed in the Printed Paper Office. This Order has already been considered in another place. My purpose has been to indicate the general nature of its contents. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 27th June, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
  8.55 p.m.
  Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has made clear, this Order, the second Appropriation Order for 1975, deals with the balance of the Estimate for the current financial year and covers almost all the responsibilities of Government in Northern Ireland. At this hour, I should like mainly to confine my questions to Class IV; namely, educational expenditure, although possibly other noble Lords may wish to question the noble Lord on one or two other aspects of the Order.
  Earlier this year, in the Budget, the Government decided on public expenditure cuts. I am not sure of their full effect on education in Northern Ireland, but I understand that at least there will be no growth in real terms in educational expenditure in the Province. In this financial situation, I can well understand the reasons for this; but this Order gives me the opportunity to ask where the reductions in planned expenditure in
  1232
  education in Ulster have had to fall; in other words, are they mainly falling on the primary, secondary or higher education fields? Especially I should like to ask whether there will have to be a reduction in the planned expansion of teacher employment.
  On the 9th July there were reports in Northern Ireland newspapers that Queen's University in Belfast is experiencing considerable financial difficulties. I wonder whether any representations have been made to the Government by the University and whether the Government have any comments to make on this matter at this stage. I believe I am right in saying that a co-ordinating committee has been set up on which the Northern Ireland Universities and the Ulster College are going to plan together for the future. May I say what a welcome step this is. I am sure that the universities and the polytechnics have each their respective roles to fulfil and I should like to ask whether the Government are confident that the new university at Coleraine is going to be able to continue to develop in the foreseeable future to its full planned establishment of numbers.
  Lastly, on education, 18 months ago the Lelièvre Report on Teacher Training in Northern Ireland was published. I realise that some of the proposals, notably for increase in in-service training will be costly, but I wonder whether the Government could tell the House whether any action has subsequently been taken to put any parts of the Lelièvre Report into effect.
  The effect of economic recession, I suppose, has probably more harmful social effects in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I should be interested to know what is the present level of unemployment in the Province compared to Great Britain and how the sums to be spent this year by the Department of Manpower Services for employment, training, rehabilitation and settlement (Class IX(2)) compare with last year's figures. Although the Northern Ireland training centres are a cause for considerable pride for anyone who has anything to do with them, they cannot of themselves create new industry and commerce to any great effect in the Province. I should be interested also to

  1233
  hear how the expenditure of the Department of Commerce on industrial development services compares with last year and what success there is at the moment in attracting new industry to Northern Ireland. This is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, spoke about some weeks ago when we were debating Northern Ireland in another respect.
  I may have asked some questions of which I did not have the opportunity to give the noble Lord notice, and the noble Lord may prefer to write to me on them. This is a late hour to be debating what is in effect the budget for Northern Ireland. Let us hope that soon the Convention will produce a plan upon which the Government of Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland can once again he settled.
  Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, before other noble Lords speak and while his questions are still clear in my mind, it may be useful. The expenditure on education does not represent a cut. The total education estimate in 1974–75 was £169 million. The estimate for 1975–76 is £201 million, which is an increase. The noble Lord may have in mind expenditure involving the Area Education and Library Boards, and I should like to explain exactly what the situation is there. I think this is where the noble Lord's feeling that there is a cut has come from. In 1974–75 the Department agreed that the Area Boards could spend up to £11 million on capital projects. In the current year the Department has agreed that the Boards may spend up to £14·6 million on capital projects, which is more than they spent last year. So far there are no cuts. But the Board as a group requested permission to plan for £37 million, or about 200 per cent. of what they had spent last year. This has not been agreed. Even so, I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have not cut the education programme, but have introduced realism into the plans.
  The Department of Education is in continuous touch with both universities about their financial difficulties. They arise, like so many people's difficulties today, because of inflation. The Department is taking the advice of the University Grants Committee on the level
  1234
  on the recurrent grant for the universities for 1975–76. That is all I can say about that. As to the Lelièvre Committee, there has been some progress. For example, induction training was a major theme of the Report. A number of induction training trials are proceeding and the results will be assessed. Another theme was the need to increase in-service training. Progress is being made here: for example, the Universities' Colleges of Education and the Ulster College are organising one-term courses for teachers involved with careers work which will begin next January.
  The noble Lord spoke about Northern Ireland training centres of which we are very proud, as he knows. We lead the British Isles in this and we agree that they cannot solve the problems by themselves. I should like to write to him if I may about his detailed questions about the manpower services.
  9.3 p.m.
  Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said when talking about a partial Appropriations Bill, that this was the proper time to discuss the Government of Northern Ireland and its appropriation. Tonight, at this late hour, we are demonstrating once more the difficulties of direct rule. We are showing how almost impossible it is for Parliamentary control to be exercised over the Government of Northern Ireland, because in the course of an hour we are discussing the expenditure of £800 million, which is the total budget, and £510 million which is in this particular appropriation.
  I should like to support my noble friend Lord Belstead in his appeal for, as it were, special treatment for Northern Ireland in this affair. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that Northern Ireland must contribute, as part of the United Kingdom, to the total economic welfare of the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with that. But I should like to feel that, as all Governments in the past, direct rule Governments and Governments in Stormont, they always exercised their right to expect the special circumstances which might exist—if they were special circumstances—in fighting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government and Northern Ireland Government affairs. I

  1235
  should like to get an assurance from the noble Lord that the present Northern Ireland Government, of which he is a member, is fighting hard for this effect because Northern Ireland is a special case with special problems.
  The noble Lord will know, because I spoke to him, that I had intended to pay a compliment to him for the work he has done. Unfortunately, time will prevent me from doing this, so he will have to forgo that pleasure. However, it is worth while saying that there has been a considerable amount of anti-Whitehall talk in Northern Ireland lately. This may have rubbed off on certain Ministers as being criticism of their personal efforts. I should like to make clear that I do not believe that there is any more anti-Whitehall talk in Belfast than there is in Edinburgh, and that this is the problem of rule from Westminster. The personal efforts which the noble Lord and his colleagues make—I may disagree with some of their decisions—are great. The problems they have to face with constituencies in this country, Ministries here and in Northern Ireland, make an intolerable situation which is demonstrated by the debate we are having tonight.
  I must tell the noble Lord that there is a problem on this question of direct rule to which the Government should pay some attention. There has been an increase in transferred civil servants from this country to Stormont Castle and a decrease from the Northern Ireland Civil Service to the hub of power which resides in Stormont Castle. Discontent has been voiced within the Civil Service of Northern Ireland that at a critical time expert advice, which has been given and which has been recognised by Governments as being very valuable advice, may not be available in the volume at which it was. There is a reduction in that area.
  I should like to turn to the area in which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has a great interest. This is Class IV, Agriculture, which is the pig and poultry industry or the intensive farming industry. The total number of people employed directly and indirectly is about 14,000. This is a very efficient industry which was built up when we had access to the world market of grain. We have now gone in the EEC, and various other political decisions have been
  1236
  taken which have nothing to do with the efficiency of the industry, and they have put that industry in jeopardy. The EEC in their latest paper, which arrived late last week, recognised that this was a problem and that for social reasons support should be given. I realise that we are in a stringent economic position and that many thousands of jobs are in jeopardy; but for social reasons I believe that this whole situation should be looked at very seriously.
  It is much more potent if you have 7,000 people in Harland and Wolff who are going to be made unemployed if the Government do not support the firm, than if you have 14,000 who will be only partially unemployed throughout the community. This is lack of muscle, and it is our duty to see that just because muscle is not being provided by sensible people spread over the country, they should not be put in jeopardy. It was, indeed, for social reasons, among other things, that the Government supported Harland and Wolff.
  This brings me to Class VI which concerns industry and commerce. I should like to ask the noble Lord—and perhaps he will write to me because it is a very complicated matter, although I did give him warning of it—whether he would state exactly where the money for Harland and Wolff is coming from. We have been told that some of that money, though not all of it, is coming from the general Budget for Northern Ireland. As I said before, this is the first time that services within Northern Ireland—road services, water services, sewage services—have been cut back in order to provide for industrial employment. I believe that Northern Ireland should be told exactly where that money is coming from.
  Arising out of that, as Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which is budgeted separately, this provides an opportunity for the Government to say where such money will be coming from. For instance, is the Midlands suffering in any way? Is there a school, a waterworks, or a sewage works in a geographical area, which is being cut because of British Leyland? Is there an area in Scotland which is suffering because another factory is being supported? If not, this is rank discrimination against Northern Ireland, because the Province is separately budgeted for. I

  1237
  think this should be made clear, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I feel it is right that that should be spelt out to the people who are benefiting from this Government support, as well as to the people who are suffering from it. There are two issues here and I think the effects should be made clear on both sides.
  As we are dealing with Class VI relating to commerce, I should like to refer to something with which I have had a great deal to do; that is, tourist development. I am glad to see that we are spending a lot of money on tourist development, but I would appeal to the noble Lord and his colleagues, instead of travelling by those beautiful jet planes from Belfast to Northolt, to "pig it" without declaring who they are, so that they travel with me and other people on a TriStar, because it is really impossible to imagine that these cruelties could be inflicted on us. It is no use spending money on tourist development and asking people to come if the facilities are not there.
  British Airways and all their personnel, together with the British Airports Authority, could not be more helpful, and I have no complaint at all about any of the people involved. British Airways has always been subject to pressure from Governments in Northern Ireland with a view to encouraging them and finding out what problems they have; the Northern Ireland Governments have always helped them in the past. But the fact is that we suffer TriStars because British Airways wish to have a shuttle service with Tridents to Glasgow. That is their commercial decision; and I should like to ask the Government whether they wll make representations to see that we have proper communications between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  We suffer one tremendous disadvantage in that it costs very nearly £40 direct to Northern Ireland from London and return. That is the price put against any tourist who comes to England, lands at Heathrow and wants to go on to Northern Ireland. There are so many foreign tourists, including Americans, who wish to do so. Of course, everybody objects to high prices, but if there is a high price, my goodness! there ought to be a high-quality service at the same time.
  1238
  I am not complaining, as your Lordships will know, about the security arrangements, because security must exist and I am the last to suggest that there should be no security. But last Sunday, when I arrived from Northern Ireland, three other aeroplanes—which is the equivalent of one TriStar—arrived at the same moment. There was one of those revolving platforms, which I now understand is called a console, on which the baggage goes round. First one truckload came out from Edinburgh; then there was one from Glasgow and then one from Belfast, and there were 300 or 400 people around that one console. I could not get near my baggage. Your Lordships can imagine my pleasure when I saw the five dozen eggs, followed by the ham I brought come zooming down the console and slipping over the top. We have been eating scrambled eggs ever since. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will know that I appreciate good food and I was bringing these as presents for people with whom I was staying, not being able to afford to go to hotels with the House of Lords allowance.
  In every economic crisis which has hit Northern Ireland the Ministers of Commerce have been very energetic in making visits abroad to get business and to bring employment to Northern Ireland. It is a long time since a Minister of Commerce has been abroad touting for business for Northern Ireland. If it was effective in the past, then the worse the crisis the more important it is that a Minister goes abroad to places where there is money to bring in industry. By that alone will we get employment and some form of stability.
  9.16 p.m.
  Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I reply first to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, because otherwise I shall lose the thread. The noble Viscount began by asking whether we on the Ministerial side of the Northern Ireland Office fight Northern Ireland battles. I think he can rest assured on this. We are reasonably good departmental Ministers in this way and we try very hard to look after our side. The noble Viscount referred to the question of direct rule. It is of course an awkward and difficult subject and it is because we realise this I that my right honourable friend, with

  1239
  everybody's agreement, set up the Convention, and we hope that this will lead to something else. I do not think there is anything more to be said on that. None of us thinks that direct rule is the best answer; it is the only answer we have got.
  My Lords, on the question of agriculture of course the noble Viscount is right. Northern Ireland agriculture is and must always be basically a grass converting job and if individual farmers particularly small ones are going to have any jam on their bread and butter they must do some intensive farming such as pigs and poultry. I suggested this the moment I got there and I am working very hard to help them but it is not very easy. First one has to realise that there is a differential—for two reasons. First, because, as the noble Viscount has said he himself is, they are a certain distance away from their markets and we pay a fairly large subsidy for the moving of Northern Ireland eggs to England. This is not entirely neglected. Secondly the situation has changed. These rather efficient intensive farming efforts were built up particularly on the pig side when there was a great deal of cheap cereal available direct in ships from America. The absence of this is nothing whatever to do with the EEC but to the absence of cheap cereals. Although the EEC has some influence in that a good deal of cereal is imported to Great Britain a-d breaks bulk there and comes over—which of course is more expensive—the main difficulty is in the change in terms of trade.
  We therefore have to confront the British farmer and my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a very efficient industry which has the capital, the men and the plant to produce things which the English farmer reckons he can produce just as well without the subsidy. So when the noble Viscount speaks of a social subsidy, one is probably getting somewhere near it. In these times it is very difficult to get much support for this. We are in constant discussion, and we have agreed with experts from the Ministry of Agriculture that there is a real differential. Whether or not it is met is a different point, but we have agreed on its existence so quite a lot is going on about this. I hope we shall be
  1240
  able to do something later on, but I certainly make no promise.
  As regards Harland and Wolff, I think the noble Viscount was rather rhetorical in asking for a Birmingham deficit to meet British Leyland. As the noble Viscount knows very well, the accounts of Great Britain are one thing and the accounts of Northern Ireland are another. This throws up certain facts about Northern Ireland rather more clearly than it does sometimes in the much wider figure in the case of Great Britain. But of course there is no particular deduction which is made in order to meet British Leyland. They are just that amount short and it must be found by not doing other things. Exactly the same is the position in Northern Ireland.
  My right honourable friend said a negative thing. He said, "The money has to be found, clearly, out of the money we spend. I undertake not to cut"—I think he said this: I have it down somewhere—"the social services or areas of high unemployment." But he never said: "I am going to give you a list to show that we have taken so much off customs and excise and so much off something else." The accounts are done as a whole. I think the noble Viscount is asking for something he will not get and has no right to expect. What the Secretary of State said was that this money would have to be found somewhere, as indeed it will. "Somewhere" means either out of the Northern Ireland Budget or out of the United Kingdom Budget. There is no other place where the money can be found, and the first place one turns to is the local place—the Northern Ireland Budget. Of course, we have been reviewing the matter hard and carefully, and I have every reason to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer here is doing the same. The results will come out one way or the other in a number of rather disagreeable cuts here and there, one assumes, but they will not be related directly to Harland and Wolff.
  As regards tourism, the same situation arises. What is wrong with tourism is the distance plus the instability. The Tourist Board, as the noble Viscount knows, is in rather good shape. It has done much very useful work, but it would be absurd to spend a great deal of money on advertising at this stage. My own view is that when we obtain stability in Northern

  1241
  Ireland the distance will be all right; I think people will come in spite of the faulty pound. But I do not think we should try to induce them to come yet.
  As to going abroad to obtain business, my right honourable friend Mr. Stanley Orme at the moment spends his whole time trying to keep business, rather than getting it. He is run off his feet with companies which are in trouble and which he is trying to help. When one speaks of getting business, it reminds me that we used, I think 18 months ago, to sell a good deal of meat to the American forces on the Continent. This was stopped because they said it was not safe to send a meat inspector to Belfast. We are up against things of that kind. The difficulty is not to persuade people to come over to us but to persuade them not to go away. My Lords, I may have missed one or two points, but if I have I will write to the noble Viscount.
  Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down might I press him on the question of tourist facilities as provided by aerodromes, and aerodrome facilities? I entirely agree with everything he is saying, but, no matter how quickly we get stability, if there is going to be the mess up we have over a vast aeroplane coming in we shall simply never attract people. The situation is due to the introduction of a vast aeroplane without the facilities capable of dealing with it. At Aldegrove there is only one runway that can take the TriStar. If one lands down wind or up wind—I cannot remember which—one has then to taxi the whole way back, and it takes about 15 or 20 minutes after landing to do so. I agree that the Tourist Board has done a great job, and continues to do so, but both in London and in Belfast there is a vast deficiency in facilities.
  Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Viscount has put his point very clearly.
  9.24 p.m.
  Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I should like to make only a few remarks at this late hour. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, quite rightly in my view, raised the question of universities. In the peculiar educational system which exists in Northern Ireland today the only
  1242
  place at which Catholics and Protestants can meet is in the universities. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is of course well aware of this. Therefore, both Queen's University, under the chancellorship of Lord Ashby, a Member of this House, and the new University of Coleraine, under the vice-chancellorship of a wonderful Australian, Mr. Alan Burgess, are worthy of every effort which the Government in London can make for their support. That is so for the reasons I have just given, which, in my view, are far more compelling than any other reasons which may be advanced from the point of view of the Treasury in London.
  Secondly, with regard to Harland and Wolff, looking back on the old days I suppose that the most traumatic experience I ever had during my Premiership was when the chairman of Harland and Wolff came into my office one day in July and said, "I cannot pay the wages on 1st August. What are you going to do about it?" In the then—though not at all now—rather revolutionary way in which Mr. Harold Wilson, who was then Prime Minister, ran the Government he had a habit, which is no longer revolutionary, of appointing chairmen of Boards long before the First or the Second Reading of the Bill took place in the House of Commons. At that time this was of very great importance to us in Northern Ireland, for he had already indicated that Mr. William Swallow, the then Managing Director of Vauxhall, would be the new Chairman of the Shipbuilding Industry Board. Although the legislation was not introduced for another six months, we were then able to bring Mr. William Swallow to Belfast and frogmarch him around the vast area of Harland and Wolff. I shall never forget that when he came to lunch with me afterwards he said, "This is a massive national asset and I will go back to London and advise the Government to save it."
  But for that fact—and I think people should remember this—Harland and Wolff would have closed down then and 12,000 people would have been thrown out of work. It was a turning point in the saving of the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland at that time. Many of the people in the old days who were

  1243
  in favour of UDI said, "Let us have a block grant and we will manage our finances". I always opposed that; I always said that we were getting fair treatment from the Treasury. And I oppose it today. If a block grant were given to Northern Ireland, they could fight among themselves about how it should be spent. They would never come to any agreement. Thank God we have never had a block grant in Northern Ireland!
  Finally, rather strangely, may support the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in all he said about the introduction of the TriStar. I put down a Question about the TriStar a month ago and received a most unsatisfactory Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. All the fears that I expressed in that Question have come true. On Monday of last week I tried to catch the so-called 12.10 aeroplane from Belfast. Sitting beside Mr. Gerry Fitt, we took off—or, rather, tried to take off. I suppose that we were going at about 80 mph when suddenly there was a most ghastly shudder. The automatic brakes had come on by mistake. We were then motored round to the main terminal building where, after three hours, they were able to mend the so-called automatic brake. And eventually we arrived in London some four hours late. Since then there have been many other problems of this kind. The spare parts are all kept in London. Therefore if one of the TriStars breaks down in Belfast there is no method of mending it there, and three or four days later in fact they had to fly a special TriStar over with the spare parts and the people were delayed not, as I was, for four hours but for seven or eight hours.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, is perfectly correct: this has been introduced in order to facilitate the Glasgow shuttle with Tridents and it is intended to run the Belfast service with three TriStars a day each way. I realise that we have been very fortunate indeed to have seven Tridents each way each day, but I would beg the noble Lord to look into this problem. It is not working; the facilities at Aldegrove are totally unacceptable. It is very hard for the noble Lord to understand this because he does not use these facilities himself.
  Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Sometimes, my Lords.
  Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, the facilities in London are also totally unacceptable. This is the only airport in the United Kingdom that has the TriStar. Otherwise the TriStar is kept entirely for foreign service, and while it may suit British Airways—as I know in my efforts to support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, when she was fighting the Conservative Government to maintain the facilities at Cromwell Road which have now been dispensed with—it is not working. I beg the noble Lord to lean heavily on British Airways to ensure that if we are to be inflicted with a Jumbo Jet carrying 320 people, with security which does not exist at any other airport in the United Kingdom, the facilities must be made right, both in Belfast and in London. Having said all that, I should like to support what the noble Lord has said in the very difficult circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland today. Anyone who has read Mr. Crossman's autobiography will know that direct rule was something which the British people never wanted to impose but which they were forced to impose against their will.
  Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, there are not many eyes in the House but there can hardly be a dry one after the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have described their experiences. Sneaking seriously, I am aware that this is working badly and assure the noble Viscount and the noble Lord that I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues who are more deeply involved in this than I am.
  I will say two things in answer to the support given by the noble Lord. I entirely agree about the importance of the universities and the reason for it. I would only point out that there is one educational establishment apart from the universities which has absolutely mixed public and that is Lisnevin Training School for Delinquent Boys, where nobody can tell you whether a boy is a Catholic or a Protestant, which is very attractive. I entirely agree that it is most important in the university, as my friend and colleague, Mr. Roland Moyle, who is responsible for this is fully aware, but I will draw it to his attention.

  1245
  My last remark is that I think Sir William Swallow preceded me as the Chairman of the Hotels and Catering Neddo." It is a curious thing, but I was interested to hear that the advice he gave them is the same advice that we are getting now and taking, perhaps not for a sequence of rescues but for this rescue which we really are trying to pull through. I am grateful for the support and I hope that this Draft Appropriation Order can be accepted.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
  WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  Twenty-eighth Report from the Select Committee made, and printed pursuant to the Order of the House of 26th November 1974.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Twenty-fifth Report from the Joint Committee made on certain Statutory Instruments, including the following Affirmative Instruments:
  Draft Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) (Reserve Fund) Regulations 1975,
  Draft Medicines (Feeding Stuffs Additives) Order 1975,
  Draft Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1975, the said Report to be printed.

  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  EFFLUENT STORAGE
  EFFLUENT STORAGE
  CONSUMER ADVICE CENTRES
  CONSUMER ADVICE CENTRES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND
  NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND