Sitting of 13 May 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st May],
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to reduce the total sum of £868,648,000 on page 9 of the Schedule by £83,000,000 by:

  (1) reducing the sums mentioned in Item 10 of Part I of the Schedule (Page 6) as follows:

  (a) in column 3, by leaving out "£187,700,000" and inserting "£137,700,000" and

  (b) in column 4, by leaving out "£86,350,000" and inserting "£61,350,000": and

  (2) reducing the sums mentioned in Item 25 in Part III of the Schedule (Page 9) as follows:

  (a) in column 2, by leaving out "£60,000,000" and "£64,000,000" and inserting "£56,000,000" and "£60,000,000", and

  (b) in column 3, by leaving out "£30,000,000" and "£32,000,000" and inserting "£26,000,000" and "£28,000,000".—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

  Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Expenditure Reductions
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the extra defence cuts announced in the Budget.
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the cuts in the Services' equipment and works programmes which are to form the bulk of the £110 million defence cuts announced by the Chancellor on 15th April will be made good by additional expenditure in the future.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for defence of the reduction in expenditure by £100 million as a result of the Budget.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 6th May.—[Vol. 891, c. 1230.]
    Mr. Blaker: Do not these cuts make nonsense of the Secretary of State's grandiose claim that the Government's defence review was based on a fundamental and rational assessment of Britain's needs? Will he now give the House an assurance that there will be no further cuts of this kind?
    Mr. Mason: The Secretary of State for Defence can never give that assurance in reply to the final question which the hon. Gentleman posed, and I should be foolish to do so. The main strategic decisions that we took on the defence review still stand. The cut for 1976–77 will not impinge upon that posture.
    Mr. Trotter: Does the Secretary of State know what he proposes to cut? If he knows, why will he not tell us?
    Mr. Mason: I told the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House last week that, because of the cut of £110 million planned for 1976–77, it is likely that

    223
    equipment purchases will have to be adjusted, that works and building programmes will have to be deferred and that some job prospects will have to be lost.
    Mr. Buck: Before the right hon. Gentleman presented his White Paper there were consultations with our allies. Were there any consultations with our allies before the further cuts were made?
    Mr. Mason: Of course, there could not be consultation on this because it was a budgetary matter. However, our NATO allies were informed immediately after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, and there will be opportunity for full discussions at the Defence Planning Council meeting next week.

    Employment (Dockyards and Shipbuilding)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect of recently announced cuts in defence expenditure on employment in the Royal dockyards.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the effect on employment in naval shipbuilding yards and naval dockyards of the recently announced additional £110 million reduction in defence spending.
    The Under—Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): The reduction of £110 million in the defence budget for 1976–77 should not affect employment either in the yards building ships for the Royal Navy or in the Royal dockyards.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does that mean that there will be no unemployment in Rosyth dockyard as a consequence of the recently announced cuts in defence expenditure? Does my hon. Friend recognise that more than 6,000 people are employed in this naval dockyard, which is one of the biggest employers in the whole of Fife? Has he made any estimate of the number of jobs that would be cut there if the nuclear programme were abandoned and the cuts recommended by some of my hon. Friends were implemented in full?
    Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that we have quite enough practical problems
    224
    at present to deal with without indulging in hypothetical considerations of the kind he has outlined. It remains the policy of the Government to maintain dockyard capacity at about its present level and to use capacity which is temporarily released from warship refitting for other productive purposes.
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure me that the recent £110 million reduction in defence spending will not mean any unemployment or any reduction in the labour force in the Vosper Thornycroft dockyard in Southampton?
    Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that the cut of £110 million is not expected to cause any reductions in the employment of the warship building firms in general, especially as there is a shortage of labour in the warship building industry at present. Royal Navy and overseas orders are likely to take up the available capacity in the main warship building yards for the foreseeable future.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I know that the Minister must have gone into this matter very carefully. Can he give us an indication of what sort of other productive work he has in mind?
    Mr. Judd: I presume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the naval dockyards. In the foreseeable and immediate future, the yards will be fully taxed dealing with naval work.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is it not the case that if the nuclear servicing at Rosyth were removed, Rosyth could once again be very competitive in the commercial servicing of ships?
    Mr. Judd: Rosyth Dockyard is doing outstanding work in the service of the Fleet. I am sure that the whole House would like to pay a tribute to the workers at all levels who make this work possible.

    Persian Gulf (Secretary of State's Visit)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Gulf area.
    Mr. Mason: I visited Saudi Arabia and Oman. In Saudi Arabia I was received by King Khalid and had talks with him and leading members of the Government. In Oman I visited British

    225
    troops in the Dhofar region and had talks with Sultan Qaboos and the Deputy Minister of Defence.
    Mr. Newens: Was there any discussion of the future use of Masirah or other bases in that area by the Americans? Did my right hon. Friend gain any impression of the attitude of the local people towards increased American involvement, particularly after Dr. Kissinger's statement earlier this year about the conditions in which the United States would use force in the case of an oil embargo? Would such involvement still be welcome?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend refers to Masirah, and not to my talks with Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Those talks were confidential, but I can say that the question of Masirah was not raised, neither have we had any detailed representations from the Americans for the use of Masirah.
    Mr. Aitken: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the statement he is reported to have made during his visit to the Gulf to the effect that in the foreseeable future British forces might be withdrawn from Oman? Is that withdrawal foreseen because of the imminent defeat of the Dhofar Marxist rebels or because he cannot appreciate the possibility of defeat by his own Left-wing rebels?
    Mr. Mason: If the hon. Gentleman reads the defence review statement, he will see that we have no intention of withdrawing our forces in present circumstances. That still stands. Secondly, the Sultan's armed forces, with assistance from Her Majesty's Government and the Jordanians and Iranians, are having success and are driving the rebels back to the South Yemen frontier. They are professional and trained rebels from Communist sources crossing into the Dhofar province from the Yemen. Gradually, as we succeed and Omanisation takes place, our forces can be lessened in numbers.

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with NATO about the maintenance of the British commitment in the
    226
    light of the cuts in defence expenditure announced in the recent Budget Statement.
    Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 28th April.—[Vol. 891, c. 15.]
    Miss Fookes: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that our allies will greet the latest cuts with a song in their heart, if I may coin a phrase?
    Mr. Mason: I have had no response from my NATO colleagues since we transmitted to them the statement resulting from the Budget Statement. When I met the NATO Defence Ministers last week the question was not raised, but it may be discussed at the Defence Planning Council meeting next week.
    Mr. Younger: As the Secretary of State said in his White Paper that NATO is the linchpin of our national security, and as NATO has made it very clear that it strongly disapproves of the cuts the right hon. Gentleman has already made in our defence budget, can he give an undertaking that the extra £110 million cut will in no sense fall on our commitment to NATO?
    Mr. Mason: I tried to indicate in reply to an earlier question that the cut will not impinge upon our present defence posture and that NATO remains the linchpin of our security. By deferment of equipment procurement and by works and buildings programmes being deferred in the year in question, we may be able to save the money without interfering with our NATO commitment.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Have any of my right hon. Friend's NATO colleagues indicated to him their desire to bring their defence expenditure up to our level?
    Mr. Mason: It is interesting that both the Italians and the French have decided to take a more prominent part in naval activities in the Mediterranean, where we had planned to withdraw.

    Employment (Yorkshire and Humberside)
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what further effects on

    227
    employment in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region he envisages because of the further cut in defence expenditure of £110 million.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): No major projects will be cancelled as a result of these further savings, so their effects on employment in Yorkshire and Humberside should be minimised.
    Mr. Woodall: Is my hon. Friend aware that that statement will be received with much pleasure, particularly by the Yorkshire aircraft workers in the Brough area, who have petitioned him and many, if not all, of the Yorkshire Members?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, these are very difficult matters. We do our best to meet the need for saving at the same time as minimising the consequences for employment, but it is not easy.
    Mr. Wall: As Brough is in my constituency, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy to cause unemployment by not allowing Brough to compete for orders for Buccaneers for South Africa?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is as topsy—turvy as it was intended to be. We shall do all we can to provide employment in the aircraft industry, consistent with the wider policy considerations that all Governments have followed from time to time.
    Mr. Cryer: Can my hon. Friend give the House details of any assessment he has made of the improved export potential resulting from the defence cuts because our industrial structure is better able to compete with countries such as Japan, which do not squander resources on providing arms for export?
    Mr. Rodgers: I wish that I could bring such comfort to my hon. Friend. I cannot do so at this stage, but I shall do my best to help him later.
    Mr. Onslow: As the Government spokesman in another place told that House recently that if we could afford to buy the maritime Harrier now we would do so, can the Minister say whether failure to place an order for the maritime Harrier is because of economic constraints or uncertainty about defence needs? Will he confirm that if maritime Harrier orders
    228
    are not placed that will amount to another defence cut?
    Mr. Rodgers: I gave a very careful assessment of the whole question of a decisison on the maritime Harrier in the defence debate on Wednesday evening. I should like to rest on that for the moment.

    Tied Houses
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is Government policy to continue to evict tenants from tied defence houses.
    The Under—Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): We resort to eviction only when unavoidable and when all other expedients have failed.
    Mr. Ridley: While I entirely understand the reasons why the Government must secure their own houses for Service personnel on such occasions, and why the hon. Gentleman has had to evict one of my constituents from a Service house, how can it be that the Government are at the same time making noises saying that other people should not have tied houses and that tied houses should be abolished in the private sector?
    Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will know that his constituent's case is to be heard in court for the first time on Thursday. Therefore it is not fair to say that the constituent has already been evicted.
    On the question of tied houses, I would wish all other landlords of tied houses to be as considerate as the Services were towards their tenants, as the recent Shelter report on tied accommodation fairly points out.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does not my hon. Friend think it ridiculous that some councils still insist on the Services taking a court order against their tenants before they will rehouse them in council accommodation? Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the local authority associations to see whether there is a way round this long and arduous procedure?
    Mr. John: It is unfortunate that the stress for tenants who are likely to lose their accommodation should be heightened by insistence on court orders or even, in some cases, warrants of possession before consideration is given to

    229
    rehousing. My right hon. Friend will shortly be issuing a circular on the question to local government. I hope that the circular will be helpful in dealing with the point my hon. Friend has made.

    Milan Anti-tank Weapon
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his intention to purchase for the British Army the Milan anti—tank weapon from the French.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We have made no decision.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I hope he will resist any pressure put on him by the Chiefs of Staff to buy Milan when we have systems developed and produced in this country and when it is vital to the workers in constituencies such as mine that they are proceeded with in preference to buying weapons from another country.
    Mr. Rodgers: I must remind my hon. Friend that we cannot achieve overall defence savings—I know that he wants us to go further—unless we are very hardheaded about our decisions on equipment procurement. I set out last Wednesday evening, I think to the general approval of the House, the considerations which we must bear in mind. Certainly the question of employment is one, but operational necessity and timing are others.
    Mr. Pattie: Is the Minister aware that Milan has serious limitations in that its warhead is smaller than that of Vigilant, which has been in service for more than 11 years, it has difficulties about nighttime operation and it is vulnerable to counter-measures? Will he consider whether purchase of the weapon would undermine the credibility of our own Swingfire in export markets?
    Mr. Rodgers: If I had to choose between the assessment of the hon. Gentleman and that of my advisers, I would choose the assessment of my advisers.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In this whole matter of choosing between foreign and domestic military equipment, will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department still has greater confidence in the Rapier antiaircraft missile than in the Franco-German Roland? Will he confirm or deny
    230
    the report in the Sunday Times last Sunday that a very important sale of the Rapier missile to the United States was lost in competition with Roland as a result of the failure of the British Government to exercise any kind of pressure?
    Mr. Rodgers: I can answer "Yes" to both questions. We have very great faith in the capacity of the British guided weapons industry, but I must stress again that many considerations come into the purchase of this kind of equipment. I do not believe that the cause of our Armed Services and the country is best served by remarks which are unreasonably critical about equipment which the Armed Services are considering for purchase whatever its origin.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does not the falling value of the pound make it even more important to get valuable offset agreements if we are to purchase foreign military equipment?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that the word used by the hon. Gentleman in the debate the other evening was "reciprocity". I entirely agree with him.

    Malaysia
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Forces and ancillary personnel are at present in Malaysia.
    Mr. William Rodgers: There are about 130 members of the British Forces and ancillary personnel in Malaysia at present, of whom some 80 are on training courses.
    Mr. Price: In view of the increasing troubles in Northern Malaysia, which could flow over into Thailand, and of the importance of the British not getting mixed up in them, will my hon. Friend give an absolute guarantee that no members of the Special Air Services Regiment are engaged in activities in either of those two countries?
    Mr. Rodgers: I share my hon. Friend's very proper concern that we should not get involved in operations of this kind which are the responsibility of the Malaysian authorities. I think he will find that those we have in Malaysia at the moment are comparable to the sort of training teams we have elsewhere in the world.
    Sir David Renton: In the event of the Malaysian Government requesting our help, would it be forthcoming?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is a hypothetical question.

    RAF Display Teams
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to cut back the activities of display teams in the RAF.
    Mr. John: I have no plans at present further to curtail the activities of the RAF display teams beyond the significant reductions imposed last year by the need to conserve manpower, money and fuel.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend say how many such display teams there are and what is their total cost? Will he confirm that the cost of running the Red Arrows last year was more than £800,000? One appreciates the technical skill of the Red Arrows, but is it advisable at the present time to continue their flying at that cost? Do these display teams have any significant effect upon recruitment?
    Mr. John: Six flying teams are at present organising and there is one ground display team. As for recruiting and value for money, without going into the precise costs at this stage I can assure my hon. Friend that we are satisfied that such displays of great expertise have a significant effect on recruiting and are worth while. However, we are always looking at ways of securing greater value for money.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that his announcement is very welcome particularly in areas which have had the benefit of seeing these displays including events on the coast? Does he agree that it does a good deal for the RAF's prestige and a good deal to encourage youth to join the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. John: We believe that the exercise is worth while in terms of public relations for the Royal Air Force and in terms of recruitment.

    Hawkswing Anti-tank Missile
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes
    232
    to equip the British Army with the Hawk-swing anti-tank missile.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We have made no decision.
    Mr. Pattie: Does the Minister agree that there is a tremendous potential in export markets for the Hawkswing allied to Lynx helicopters, as there is for the Sea Skua weapons system? Does he agree that the Hawkswing is far superior to the French rival system Hot? Would it not be a good idea for the British Army to place its order for Hawkswing so that we can look would-be purchasers in the eye when we are asked why we have not ordered it for our own purposes?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree about the export potential for Hawkswing. I do not want to enter into an argument about the competitive merits of different systems. Our concern must be, bearing in mind our operational needs, to buy the right weapons at the right time and at the right price. These are the considerations which must govern any decisions we make.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Minister agree that it is important that a decision should be made? Is he aware that the general impression of those in the field who know is certainly in favour of Milan?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that the hon. Member's supplementary question is directly related to the options on this Question. I agree, however, that we must make the decisions as soon as possible bearing in mind all the considerations I have set out, and, of course, and very properly, the consequences for our industry of a whole series of decisions which are pending.

    Textile Purchases
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications he has received for the post of consultant to progress textile contracts in South-East Asia.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): None. No such post exists or is contemplated.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased to hear that answer. Does my hon. Friend agree

    233
    that there is a need to look at defence contracts, particularly in the light of the recession in the British textile industry, to make sure that as close to 100 per cent. of orders as possible is placed with British textile firms?
    Mr. Brown: While I very much agree with the hon. Member—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the Minister to face this way so that I can hear too.
    Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend's statement, but I cannot be drawn on the subject since Question No. 17 is related to this matter.

    Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to consult with the Italian and German Governments on the progress of the MRCA.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We remain in constant touch with our partners in the project.
    Mr. Cook: Has my hon. Friend taken note that both our partners have substantially reduced the number of aircraft in proposed orders since the start of the project? Is there no message for the United Kingdom in these reductions? Does my hon. Friend concur with the estimate of the Controller of Aircraft that the development cost of this project will be 25 per cent. more than would have been the case with a national project? What political and diplomatic advantage does my hon. Friend see in this collaboration to offset the additional cost?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am certainly aware that there were some reductions in the earlier stages, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there have been none lately. We have to make up our own mind on the issue and decide on the number of aircraft we want to purchase. No final decision is required for at least a year. I am not aware of the statement which has been attributed to the Controller of Aircraft, but here again we have to weigh the advantages of collaborative projects, which the House has wanted over many years, against the prospects of going alone. Standardisation is important and in the long run what we are doing is the
    234
    best way of ensuring the sort of economy in defence expenditure which I hope we all want to see.
    Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Does not the Minister agree that this aircraft, which is the product of three countries combined, is being eagerly looked forward to by many members of the RAF?
    Mr. Rodgers: Yes, I think there is very great confidence in it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why is the MRCA not to appear at the Paris Air Show?
    Mr. Rodgers: There was never any decision that it should. The most important thing is to get this aircraft through its development stages as fast as possible. I think that that is in our mutual interest.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the Minister bear in mind that, quite apart from the desirability of these collaborative projects, it was a Labour Government which cancelled the TSR2, abandoned the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and cancelled the F111A? If anything goes wrong with the MRCA now in the form of the Government going back on their intentions, the RAF will have been without a major aircraft for a very long time.
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member seems to want to live in the past. I have given a very firm commitment about our interests in providing the RAF with the aircraft it requires in the future.
    Mr. Nobleasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purchasing policy of his Department with regard to textile goods.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Our purchasing policy for textile goods follows our general purchasing policy of calling for competitive tenders wherever possible with the primary objective of obtaining what is needed and getting value for money, while at the same time having regard to industrial objectives.
    Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend accept that the recent decision, announced in the Press, to set up a quality control department in Hong Kong dismayed the workers in the textile industry in the north-west of England? Does he accept that while his Department may be buying these goods cheaply, the net cost to the

    235
    Exchequer of redundacy payments and unemployment benefits, and of seeking to close mills throughout the country, makes these the economics of the madhouse?
    Mr. Brown: I would have hoped that the appointment of a serving professional and technology officer for a limited period of two years would not have caused any alarm among textile workers. I sincerely hope that we can keep this matter in perspective. The total Ministry of Defence purchase of textiles amounts to £33 million per year. The purchases abroad account for £1·7 million, or 4 per cent. of this total. However, I emphasise that only ½ per cent.—that is, £160,000 worth—was bought direct from overseas suppliers. In terms of textile imports into this country, the Ministry of Defence accounts for 0·2 per cent.

    Employment Redundancies
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many workers will be declared redundant as a consequence of the recent additional cuts in defence expenditure.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The extent of redundancies amongst defence contractors at any one time must depend upon management decisions, but we do not expect the recent further savings to affect significantly the employment situation.
    Mr. Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side will welcome the statement which he has just made? Will he further resist pressures from some of his hon. Friends to increase the level of unemployment arising from the defence cuts?
    Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend, other Ministers and I have consistently said that none of us can have it both ways. If we are to have substantial savings on defence expenditure, for good and sufficient reasons, we must not try to persuade others that there is not a price to pay in a potential substantial loss of job opportunities.
    Mr. Onslow: As the Minister stated, the Secretary of State has been forthright about this, and the Government have told us that there are no easy alternatives, such as manufacturing spin driers, caravans or filing systems, on which to employ
    236
    people who lose their jobs as a result of the defence cuts. Will the Minister consider publishing a White Paper and spelling this out, for the benefit of those of his hon. Frinds below the Gangway who are either too stupid or dishonest to explain this to their constituents?
    Mr. Rodgers: Those remarks were totally uncalled for. This is an area in which strong feelings are aroused and genuine opinions are held. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no need to publish the sort of White Paper he suggests. I think that we should continue to discuss these matters calmly in the House, as most of us choose to do.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have pressed for defence cuts are every bit as concerned as others about the need to fight unemployment? Will he make it clear that it would be absolute madness for us to maintain defence contracts merely to keep people in work without any consideration of why this was done?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that there is a point of view, and a sober point of view, which the House may feel is right, that we should never seek simply to maintain employment if it serves no adequate purpose. The need is to redeploy skills in areas where they are principally needed.
    Mr. Grylls: When considering his defence cuts, will the Minister bear in mind the frightening effectiveness of the Soviet weapons displayed in the 1973 Middle East war, especially by the Egyptians and the Syrians? This is an important matter. Will he ensure, in view of this modern weaponry now held by the Russians, that he does not cut down on research and development on the most modern weapons? That is an important side. Will the Minister ensure that that is maintained?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree entirely that it is an important side. I am not sure whether a large amount of employment is directly involved in this.
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making designed to ensure that civilian workers displaced as a result of the defence review are helped to transfer to productive civilian jobs; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Wherever possible, reductions in Ministry of Defence civilian personnel will be achieved by normal wastage, but for those made redundant every effort will be made to provide alternative employment. We expect defence contractors to recognise similar responsibilities.
    Mr. Corbett: May I invite my hon. Friend to go further? Will he confirm that some of the largest trade unions with members employed in the defence industry are in favour of substantially cutting arms spending provided that alternative civilian work is made available? [Interruption.] Ignoring the guffaws of the gunboat diplomatists on the benches opposite, will my hon. Friend accept the responsibility for his Department and do what he can to ensure that there is a phased switch from defence to civilian work to ensure that people are put into work which can aid our national recovery and help exports?
    Mr. William Rodgers: I agree with my hon. Friend that some trade union leaders, though not all, want to see further substantial defence cuts. It is nevertheless true that a number of their shop stewards visit other Defence Ministers and me telling us about the difficult consequences of reduced defence spending. These are issues in which we must show a sense of balance and proportion. I ask for recognition of the fact that if we are to make major defence savings we cannot overnight guarantee other job opportunities in place of those which are lost.
    Mr. Churchill: What is to be the future of the more than 1,000 highly skilled aircraft production workers in the Hawker Siddeley Woodford and Chadderton plants who will be made redundant as a result of the Government's defence cuts? What alternative employment will be provided for them? Certain of the Minister's hon. Friends below the Gangway have suggested caravan production. How does that square with the 25 per cent. VAT rate?
    Mr. William Rodgers: I hope that the redundancies will not amount to the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, that depends a great deal on management decisions, and I cannot anticipate what they may be.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Will my hon. Friend advise the House what consultations have taken place with trade unions, management, the Department of Industry and the Department of Employment about the prospects of providing alternative employment?
    Mr. William Rodgers: Following my right hon. Friend's statement of 3rd December 1974, we made it clear that we were willing to receive representations from management and trade unions about the likely consequences which would follow. We have received a number of those representations. I saw the representatives of Hawker Siddeley Aviation and discussed with them what best could be done. We shall continue to lend our services, and those of the Department of Employment and the Department of Industry will also be available to discuss such a range of alternative jobs as may be available during difficult times.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has asked us to discuss this matter calmly. Would it not be in keeping with that request, and much more straightforward for those involved, for him to say clearly that the massive defence cuts imposed by the Government will throw thousands of people out of work? Would not the Government do better to admit it?
    Mr. William Rodgers: No, it would not be better to say that, because we have made it clear—[Interruption.] The House should listen carefully to this, because this could cause real anxiety where we should seek to avoid it. We have said plainly—we said it in the White Paper—that as a consequence of the cuts then made there might be 10,000 job opportunities at risk in the next five years. How many may become redundant we cannot tell, because that depends upon alternative work which may come forward and upon management decisions. Nevertheless I think it is wrong to exaggerate what I have always conceded to be a difficult problem.

    Disaster Relief
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the peaceful uses of the Armed Forces on such occasions as when public disasters occur in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: The provision of Service personnel and equipment, if called upon in the event of a disaster or emergency, is a recognised means of helping the civil community both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend give an indication of the most recent cases of involvement of Her Majesty's Forces in civil disasters? Will he also give consideration in some of our units to the setting up of special teams trained to cope with severe disasters such as at Flixborough and the London Moorgate Underground train disaster?
    Mr. Brown: Help was given during the heavy flooding in East Anglia and the Home Counties in November last year. At Flixborough we provided very quickly bedding and mattresses. At Moorgate we provided overalls and a bath unit for the emergency services. Overseas, help was given in Belize and Honduras after hurricane Fifi in 1974. I have noted my hon. Friend's point about special training.

    Hydrographic Surveys
    Mr. Alan Lee Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on which hydro-graphical surveys are being undertaken and where.
    Mr. Judd: Full details of hydrographic surveys are given in the annual report by the Hydrographer of the Navy. Priority is given to surveys in the waters around the United Kingdom. These surveys are made for defence and commercial shipping purposes and special attention is also being given to the requirements of our energy programme, for example in surveys of tow-out routes for moving rigs.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he able to give a progress report on this important work and tell us the financial implications?
    Mr. Judd: The work of the Hydro-graphic Study Group has been completed and its report is under consideration, but the House will appreciate that I cannot at this stage anticipate the decisions which may be taken as a result of that report. The finance for hydrographic work not for defence purposes is a matter for interdepartmental consultation, but clearly it
    240
    cannot be financed out of the limited defence budget.
    Mr. Warren: Does the Minister agree that the resources available for hydro-graphic survey are totally inadequate? Will he please consult the Secretary of State for Energy, who will draw his attention to the fact that most of the waters around this country have not been surveyed this century?
    Mr. Judd: The fleet of the Hydrographer of the Royal Navy is manned by professional men of the highest calibre and they are meeting more than adequately the programme which has been provided for them. The size of the programme in the future is a matter for consultation between various Government Departments.

    United States Polaris Bases
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates that the United States Polaris bases will be closed.
    Mr. Mason: As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend on 11th March—[Vol. 888, c. 255.]—we may be able to initiate multilateral disarmament negotiations once the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions are concluded. It may then be possible to seek the removal of the United States Polaris base as a first step in such multilateral negotiations.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the trade union and labour movement is concerned that these weapons represent a grave threat to the safety and peace of the country? As he is devoted to carrying out the terms of the election manifesto, as I am, will he use his best endeavours to ensure that, starting from the basis of the multilateral negotiations he has mentioned, we shall get rid of these Polaris bases as soon as we possibly can?
    Mr. Mason: Yes. My hon. Friend should not propagandise on the first point. If there were a conflict between East and West, even if there were no nuclear weapons based on English soil—
    Mrs. Bain: Nonsense.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
    Mr. Mason: —or in the United Kingdom, we should not be able to escape any launching of nuclear weapons from abroad. The country would be a vast base, a feeder to the Continent, full of conventional weapons, and irrespective of whether there was a nuclear base here we would be hit. My hon. Friend and I, as well as my other hon. Friends, fought the election on a manifesto commitment which I am honestly carrying out. Starting from the basis of the multilateral disarmament negotiations, we shall seek the removal of American Polaris bases from Britain. That is the commitment, and that is what we are empowered to do.
    Mr. Kershaw: Are not these bases in part an element of our alliance with our friends of the United States? If they were moved, would not the only people to rejoice be Russia and Labour supporters below the Gangway?
    Mr. Mason: The bases certainly form part of the alliance, yes, and it is right that until we have concluded the other two major negotiations in Europe we should maintain them. Only thereafter, in alliance with our American friends, shall we be prepared to start multilateral talks on their removal.
    Mrs. Ewing: As the Minister is under the impression that there are some nuclear bases on English soil and he does not seem to mind that, may we offer him the Polaris base for transfer to the River Thames, if he has no moral objection, as the Scottish National Party has? Is not the Polaris deterrent simply old scrap iron now? It is nothing but a danger, particularly to the industrial belt of central Scotland.
    Mr. Mason: I do not think that the countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union regard it as scrap. They regard it as a real deterrent, and because of it we have managed to maintain between East and West 30 years of peace.
    Mrs. Ewing: Bring it down here.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on
  242
  the results of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
  Dr. Phippsasked the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the Heads of Commonwealth Governments concerning Great Britain's continued membership of the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Much of our time was spent on economic matters and on the problems of Southern Africa, and on both a substantial measure of agreement was reached. I have already presented to the House a White Paper setting out in detail the proposals on primary commodities which I put to my Commonwealth colleagues. The outcome of the discussions on these and other subjects is described in the communiqué issued at the end of the meeting and published as a White Paper today.
  I did not raise the question of Britain's membership of the EEC and there was therefore no mention of it in the communiqué but after the matter had been raised by a number of Prime Ministers it was agreed unanimously that the Prime Minister of Jamaica, as chairman of the meeting, should issue a separate statement recording that all the other Commonwealth Heads of Government had placed on record their firm opinion that Commonwealth interests are in no way prejudiced by our membership. His statement added that many Heads of Government had emphasised that it was of positive advantage to their countries that Britain should remain a member of the EEC: and that the strong view had also been expressed that British membership was of value in encouraging the Community to be outward-looking towards the rest of the world.
  Mr. Ashley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a striking achievement in Jamaica, but is he aware that there is still deep concern about the exclusion from the Lomé Convention of many developing countries, such as India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Will he convey that deep concern to our partners in the EEC and urge them to include

  243
  those Commonwealth members in their assistance programme?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. In my speech to the conference, which has been published as a White Paper, I said that we hoped to build on the Lomé Convention so as to cover the countries of Asia to which my hon. Friend has referred. He will see from the communiqué that the Commonwealth Heads of Government supported the extension of the Lomé Convention—which they warmly welcomed—to cover the relevant countries of Asia.
  Mr. Roberts: Would the Prime Minister care to expand on his statement and tell us what was the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' attitude towards our membership of the EEC? In particular, will he comment on Mr. Gough Whitlam's view that if Britain were to withdraw she would be in danger of lapsing into the position of Spain in the seventeenth century?
  The Prime Minister: I have said, and I repeat, that my right hon. Friend and I did not seek any statement, and we said that we did not consider that one was necessary. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers pushed on with it. Various Prime Ministers at outside Press conferences as well as in the conference meeting expressed the views I have recorded. Mr. Gough Whitlam expressed them particularly strongly. I do not go along with the remarks made by Mr. Gough Whitlam which have just been quoted, but I go along with the rest of what he said. I emphasised there, as I have emphasised in this country, that, inside or outside the EEC, Britain's future depends upon our own efforts and our own restraint, and the other matters are important to us but not decisive.
  Dr. Phipps: I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend as regards the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' acceptance of our position in the EEC and their reluctance to see us become the Albania of the West. Will he, however, tell the House what steps he intends to take within the EEC in particular to see that the Commonwealth countries of Asia are included within the Lomé Convention?
  The Prime Minister: I do not remember Albania being mentioned at any point
  244
  during the conference, although I think the Prime Minister of Malta mentioned Libya once or twice. As regards the extension of the Lomé Convention, I tried to answer that question in response to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). The position is that we and the Commonwealth support the extension of the benefits of the Lomé Convention as regards access to the EEC of the Asian countries. It is also recognised, as I told the conference, that negotiations in Lomé and outside Lomé have begun. An extension, for example, of the general system of preferences would benefit all the Asian countries.
  Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us welcome the restoration of identity of views with the African Heads of State as regards policy in Southern Africa? Has any member of the Commonwealth indicated a view against British membership of the Community? There was a suggestion that the Ugandan Government had reservations.
  The Prime Minister: As regards Southern Africa I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. It is very important. This was by far the best Commonwealth Conference that any of us can remember. I think that was so mainly because the situation in Southern Africa and the prospects there have changed. As regards the question of whether any Commonwealth countries have reservations about our membership of the Community, the answer is "Certainly not". Quite apart from discussion round the table during the communiqué session to which I have referred, I and my right hon. Friend made it our business to talk to the heads of every Commonwealth delegation as to their attitude on the matter. As we know, the President of Uganda did not see fit to be present in the circumstances of this meeting. Therefore. I was not able to seek his views. I was, however, able to seek the views of the head of the Ugandan delegation. I think the hon. Gentleman can be sure that the head of the Ugandan delegation was speaking only within the general context of the President's policy and not outside it.
  Mr. Ashton: In his main answer my right hon. Friend said that the question

  245
  of the Common Market was not included in the final communiqué because he did not raise it. Why did he not raise it? Why was it not part of the communiqué? Why was it not discussed officially?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I have disappointed my hon. Friend. The Common Market was discussed officially at the conference on the initiative of other Minister and Heads of Government. I think that was right. I was certainly not going to ask them for a statement on this matter.
  Mr. Skinner: Oh!
  The Prime Minister: I understand the interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It was always possible that some would say that they did not want to interfere in a matter on which the British electorate are taking a decision. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Guyana, who took the initiative in raising this matter, was very much supported. His message, strengthened by the President of Tanzania, the Prime Minister of Canada and others, said that they were not in any way trying to interfere with the voice of the British people expressed through the ballot box, but they felt it right to state what the position of the Commonwealth was as it affected their own countries and the Commonwealth as a whole.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that most of us welcome very warmly the spontaneous initiative of the Prime Ministers in their statement on the EEC? Secondly, is he aware that we welcome his initiative on commodities at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Thirdly, as economic discussions played quite a large part in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and as we have certain problems in that direction at home, is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention, before the House rises, to make a statement about the general economic position of this country or to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make such a statement?
  The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady both for her comments on the voluntary and unsought decision of the Commonwealth on the EEC and particularly for what she said
  246
  about the initiative on commodities. It was at first thought that that initiative might face heavy weather because of the very strong views of some of the Third World countries, which rather suggested that they wanted to pull down the whole of the world's economic machinery, including the IMF and the Bank. It would take a lot of time before anything was found to replace it. There was, however, very warm support and the matter received a warm wind in the communiqué as I may say it did in Washington when we discussed the matter there. The right hon. Lady is right: a very important part of the conference was on economic discussion and on Southern Africa. As regards the economic situation in this country. I understand that the usual channels have had a discussion this morning I suggested that they might do so—and that we shall be debating the matter in the House next week if the right hon. Lady agrees.

  ZAMBIA
  Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to Lusaka.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Rifkind: When the Prime Minister last met President Kaunda, will he tell the House whether he discussed the question of compensation to Botswana and Mozambique in the event of their imposing sanctions against Rhodesia? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on Press reports that Britain has agreed to provide the bulk of the foreign exchange requirements of Mozambique resulting from the imposition of sanctions? Will he state what amount the Government envisage will be required?
  The Prime Minister: In the first place, I reject the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used—I am sure that he did not mean it technically—about compensation. We did not talk about compensation. What we said was that, in the situation which is likely to occur after the last few days of June when the new Government of Mozambique take over, we are prepared as a Government to give aid to the economic position in Mozambique. We are also prepared to consider aid in relation to Botswana and to Zambia. And

  247
  we discussed the matter with President Kaunda. We are prepared to do that. It is not a question of compensation. We did not say that we would provide the bulk of their foreign exchange. We will do it as part of what I think will be the United Nations programme. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that when we were asked whether we were prepared to provide either arms or money for guerrilla activities, my right hon. Friend and I gave a flat rejection. We said that we would in no circumstances be involved in such activities.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether any of the 10 experts indicated in the communiqué have yet been named and what sort of timetable is envisaged for the report of their deliberations on further economic co-operation?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, discussions are going on about the names. We have made suggestions. Certainly Britain will be represented on this very important committee. The chairman has been named. I do not think that the remainder have been named publicly, but the relevant Governments, on a representative basis, are being asked to suggest names. I hope that there will be a statement in the near future. The terms of reference of the committee are set out in the communiqué.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people find it most poignant and astonishing that when they would have expected him to be concentrating the whole of his abilities, such as they are, on constructing a rescue package for the United Kingdom, he seems to have spent much of his time in Jamaica constructing a destructive package for Rhodesia? Surely something better than that should be done.
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is out of sympathy with the general position taken by all parties in this House on the importance of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a unique institution which I thought was supported by everyone. I remember the great part played not only by some of our own previous Prime Ministers but by Mr. Harold Macmillan in the creation of the Commonwealth as it is today. It is remarkable that we can still, because of
  248
  the former British connection, meet and express views representing every region and ocean of the world on every kind of economic development. I am disapopinted that the hon. Gentleman has not realised the importance of this.
  This was the best Commonwealth Conference that any of us can remember since the Commonwealth Conferences started. [Interruption.] That is worth saying again so that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) can understand it. I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) about the situation here. That matter will be debated next week and any relevant comments that the hon. Gentleman has, which I very much doubt, will no doubt be taken into account by the House and discounted at their full value.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA
  Mr. Trotterasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to visit South-East Asia.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Trotter: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how it is that on behalf of the British people he has not expressed one word of condemnation of the naked aggression by the Communists in Vietnam against the South Vietnamese?
  The Prime Minister: I discussed the situation with President Ford. There was no disagreement between us in any of our discussions. My right hon. Friend also spoke to Dr. Kissinger in my presence on these matters. We expressed exactly the same view privately and publicly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be more American than the Americans, perhaps he will tell us what he would have liked us to have said.
  Mr. Christopher Price: If my right hon. Friend visits South-East Asia, he will probably have to go to Singapore. Will he convey to Lee Kuan Yew how much he has raised the status of both himself and his country by his forthright remarks to Congress in the United States of America? Will he also inform him that he would raise his prestige even further if he were to let out of gaol those people whom we put in gaol 13 years

  249
  ago when Her Majesty's Government had responsibility for internal affairs in Singapore?
  The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, the Prime Minister of Singapore always makes a tremendous impression on Commonwealth Conferences because of his deep perception of world affairs. The last conference was no exception. I agree with my hon. Friend on the second part of the question.

CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE)
Mr. Madel(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current dispute in the Chrysler Company.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): Production workers at Chrysler Ltd.'s Stoke engine plant at Coventry began strike action on 9th May. The strike continues and threatens employment at the Ryton and Linwood plants.
The dispute has arisen in the course of negotiations for a new annual wage settlement due for implementation from 1st July. A claim has been made for increases of £15 per week and a mass meeting of the employees concerned on 5th May voted to strike unless the company made a cash offer in response to their claim by 9th May. Subsequently the shop stewards sought an offer of £8 per week to provide a basis on which negotiations could continue and for a resumption of work.
On 8th May the company made proposals for employee participation in the management of the company, including representation on the board and for profit sharing. The company also disclosed plans for new products. At a meeting with the shop stewards and full-time officers of the unions principally concerned on 10th May, the company discussed these proposals further and urged that negotiations should begin immediately on them. If there were an immediate resumption of work and progress were made on plans for employee participation, the company undertook to make an offer in response to the wage claim on 23rd May.
The outcome of these discussions was reported by the full-time officers to a
250
meeting of all the stewards yesterday. I understand that the officials concerned sought to persuade the stewards to accept the company's undertaking and call for a return to work. The stewards, however, decided that the strike should continue. A mass meeting of the workers at the plant has been arranged for Thursday.
As the new wage settlement is not due until 1st July and the company has undertaken to make an offer next week, I very much hope that there will be an early resumption of work to allow negotiations to continue on the company's proposals.
Mr. Madel: I am sure that the whole House is glad to see the Secretary of State for Employment back after his illness.
As this dispute is potentially the most damaging that Chrysler has ever suffered, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there have been informal consultations between the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the parties to the dispute? May we take it that, if necessary and if there should be difficulty after Thursday's meeting, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will convene a very early meeting between all parties to try to bring about an early solution to this damaging dispute?
Mr. Foot: Both sides, the trade unions and the employers, know very well of the readiness of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to come in and assist, if it can, at any period either now or later. Efforts are being made to overcome the strike. I will not attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, because the precise moment when the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service might best help is not known. But, as I said, other efforts are being made to end the strike. I agree that it is a most damaging strike. It injures those who are on strike and those who are not on strike, and puts in jeopardy the jobs of all of them. Therefore, I very much hope that there will be an early end to the strike.
Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, irrespective of the merits of the wage claim, a prolonged strike at the Chrysler works would be suicidal in view of the possibility that this company, under pressure, might even collapse? In

251
those circumstances, will he follow the initiative taken by the Prime Minister and, as early as possible, call a tripartite meeting of representatives of the Government, the trade unions and the employers with a view to taking up the new initiative by the company within the general context of participation and simultaneous consideration of the legitimate wage claim by the workers?
Mr. Foot: The tripartite discussions, to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement on Sunday, are another matter and cover a much wider sphere altogether. But I assure my hon. Friend that efforts are being made—in particular, by the union leaders concerned—to assist in overcoming the strike. We wish to do everything possible to find a solution. I agree with everything my hon. Friend said about the potential damage that continuance of the strike could do.
Mr. Hayhoe: It is clear that the message from both sides of this House to the mass meeting on Thursday is that the workers should return to work. That is the hope of the Opposition just as much as of hon. Members supporting the Government.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the participation proposals which have been made, albeit at a time very close to the dispute arising, nevertheless deserve most careful study? Again, the plea of the whole House is that this should be done and that this unnecessary, damaging and destructive strike should be brought to an end as soon as possible.
Mr. Foot: Certainly we want the company's proposals about participation discussed. Indeed, the workers at Chrysler have not said that they do not want to discuss these proposals. There should be no mistake about that. But it is necessary that the strike, which is already causing serious damage, should be brought to an end. That is what the union leaders and officials concerned have urged upon all the workers there. I am sure that it is right for this House to give its full backing to the plea that they have made in that respect.
Mr. Park: Whilst I agree with the advice for a return to work at Chrysler,
252
may I ask whether my right hon. Friend and the House are aware that skilled machinists at that factory draw less money now than the men who empty the dustbins?
Mr. Foot: I will not go into the individual merits of the dispute, but I am sure that the best way to get a new wage settlement is for the strike to be brought to an end.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that some views have been expressed that if this strike ruins the company and it goes bust the Government will simply come in with another rescue operation? So far that has not been the case. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help to resolve the strike if the Government made their position clear and the company clearly acquainted its employees with its serious financial state?
Mr. Foot: I will not answer the question in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has put it, because I do not think that would be advantageous. There is no doubt on either side of the House as to what we think about the strike. We certainly trust that that will be taken account of by the shop stewards and all concerned. We hope that they will take account of what is said in this House just as we would have preferred them to have taken account of what has already been said to them on the subject by union leaders and officials. There is not the slightest doubt about the dangers for the company as a whole, for the jobs of workers at Chrysler and, indeed, for the jobs of many other workers as well. We hope that all these facts will be taken into account by those who are at the moment on strike.

BILL PRESENTED

  BRITISH LEYLAND BILL
  Mr. Secretary Benn, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Gregor Mackenzie, and Mr. Michael Meacher, presented a Bill to

  253
  authorise the Secretary of State to acquire shares in British Leyland Motor Corporation Limited and in a company formed for the purpose of acquiring shares in British Leyland Motor Corporation Limited: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

ADJOURNMENT (SPRING)
3.38 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved the motion formally now and reserved any remarks till the end of the debate. Therefore, I beg to move,
That this House at its rising on Friday 23rd May do adjourn till Monday 9th June.
3.39 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Usually, within the course of this kind of debate, when hon. Members argue against the proposal that has been made by the Leader of the House, the argument that we should not go away on recess until this or that matter has been adequately ventilated is little more than a formality; but in the case which I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman and the House, which I believe will be echoed, supported and strengthened by many of my right hon. and hon. colleagues representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, there is a literal and direct reason for asserting that there is unfinished business which the House ought not to leave behind when it rises for the Whitsun Recess.
It was in the week in February when the present cease-fire, as it is called, started in Northern Ireland, that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), as leader of the United Ulster Unionist Coalition and in its name—though I have no doubt that what he said would have commanded the support of many others and of all the representatives of Northern Ireland seats—asked that there should be an early sitting of the newly constituted Northern Ireland Committee in order to examine in detail the statement which had just been made by the Secretary of State on the cease-fire and the consequential arrangements.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that considerable importance was attached by the Government to the establishment of this Committee, which, though not technically a Grand Committee, it was believed would be useful as a forum where there could be detailed examination and, if necessary, cross-examination of

255
important matters affecting Northern Ireland.
No matter could be more important for Northern Ireland than the cease-fire and its consequences, and no matter, as I shall seek to argue, called more for the kind of debate and the kind of elucidation which only consideration in a Committee of this House makes possible.
I am not complaining that there was any reluctance on the part of the Leader of the House to comply with our request. Indeed, had he done so, it would have been in accordance with his undertaking that the subjects to be dealt with by that Committee should be such as were desired by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats. However, I have to say with regret that persistently and, I shall argue, ill-advisedly the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has from week to week and from month to month opposed the sitting of the Committee to consider this matter.
We did not contest this motion when it was moved before the Easter Recess. In retrospect we are inclined to blame ourselves for not having done so. Certainly with every week that passed we were vulnerable to the natural complaint of our constituents—who were not to know of the constant and persistent representations that we were making—that we were failing to use our position in Parliament and the opportunities deliberately provided by this House in order to debate matters which were of the utmost moment to them.
I shall return to the reasons for our reticence; nevertheless, we allowed February and March to pass, until, in the middle of last month, very regretfully, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South and his colleagues felt that, for our own protection and, indeed, in fairness to the people of Northern Ireland, we had no alternative but to let it be known publicly, after a final plea to the Lord President and to the Secretary of State, that it was not our fault that our repeated requests for the Committee to sit upon this subject had been refused.
It is in pursuance of that decision that this afternoon we are using our opportunity to demand—I think that is not an unreasonable word—that the House shall not rise until due and detailed consideration
256
has been given to the subject requested and to argue that it is in the interests of all concerned, and not least Her Majesty's Government and the policies which they are following in Northern Ireland, that such a debate shall take place.
In order to illustrate the nature and the urgency of our request I want to refer to a very recent incident—an incident which is horribly fresh in the minds of hon. Members with connections in Northern Ireland and to which reference was made in the debate in the House yesterday. Before I do so, however, may I make a point, through the Lord President, to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who had notice that this matter would be raised this afternoon. He will, I am sure, agree that one of the besetting difficulties in Northern Ireland today is the prevalence on all sides of mutual suspicion, fed by an almost incredible crop and aftermath of rumour. Rumour and suspicion are the atmosphere in which politics are lived today in Northern Ireland. It is the atmosphere in which Her Majesty's Government have to endeavour to bring their policies to fruition. Anything, therefore, which will assist the Secretary of State to break through that cloud of suspicion and rumour and to establish beyond all doubt or cavil the bona fides of Her Majesty's Government and the transparent sincerity and plainness of what they are attempting is in the highest interest of the Government as well as of Northern Ireland and, therefore, of the country as a whole.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be the first to say that we, on this bench, have gone to the utmost limit, time after time, in order to maintain his credibility in the face of those in Northern Ireland who, sometimes with very plausible arguments, have queried his good faith and good intentions. Both in this House—I could give many instances—and in public in Northern Ireland we have asserted and reasserted our conviction in the sincerity of his policies and the credibility of his statements. We have done so, not only because we believe that—for otherwise it would have been contrary to our duty to do so—but because in Northern Ireland the credibility of Government is absolutely vital to the restoration of peace and to a tolerable future for that Province.

257
Therefore, if the Secretary of State would go with me—and he must—so far as to accept my diagnosis and description of this background and then to admit—I am sure he would—that the motive of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself has been to assist and support him in making head against rumour and suspicion, may I put a proposition to him and to the Government? There is nothing and no means whereby any Government can so effectively make plain to the public what its policies are, its bona fides and its sincerity in pursuing them as debate in this House and in its Committees.
I understand—indeed, anyone who has held office will understand—the temptation of Ministers faced with a difficult and delicate situation to duck debate. That tendency is ever-present; it is implicit in human nature that one is reluctant to face debate. But it is a temptation which has to be resisted, for only when this House sees, and only when the public, through this House, sees, that the Government are not afraid to face the House, are not afraid of any question which can be put to them, are not afraid of the confrontation of words and actions which are apparently inconsistent, can confidence and conviction be restored.
It is because I believe that that is a well-founded principle of our experience, that that is one of the great functions of this place, that I am arguing this afternoon that we ought not to assent to the motion and ought not to disperse for a second recess since the cause of debate arose until this House has performed its function in this context.
I have before me the two news items, of yesterday and today—from The Times as it happens—relating to the murder of a policeman in Londonderry on Saturday, as an illustration, the most recent, of the disease which I have just attempted to diagnose. I want to quote one paragraph of the report from Belfast which we read there on the 12th—yesterday. It runs as follows:
"The first deliberate killing of a member of the security forces during the present ceasefire brought swift contact between government negotiators and Provisionals over the weekend."
I am not, of course, attaching any official authority to the words which that correspondent, writing that dispatch from Belfast, used. However, I ask the
258
House—I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is acutely sensitive to this—what is the impact upon the people of Northern Ireland, all of them, when they read a report from Belfast that as a matter of course, following such a murder, the result was "swift contact between Government negotiators and Provisionals over the weekend"? They are told there that Her Majesty's Government are in negotiation—not merely in contact, not merely in communication, but in negotiation—with those presumed to be guilty of this murder. Quite suddenly they see the whole forest of their suspicions and agonising doubts over the last three or four months confirmed. Nor would that be altered when they read—I shall not refer to it in detail—the follow-up report in The Times of today.
That proposition, deeply damaging to the Government if it is false—as I believe it must be—and grave whether it is false or true, since it is important to all who are concerned for peace in Northern Ireland, is but the latest example of a whole sequence of such apparent contradictions between Government policy and Government action, largely unexplained, which have run through from January to this very day.
I repeat that it is in the highest interest of Her Majesty's Government, of this country, and particularly of Northern Ireland for us to recognise that the only means which can be used to resolve these contradictions and to banish those doubts should now, without further delay, be taken—that is, by accepting the offer deliberately made, and the opportunity deliberately created, by the establishment of the Northern Ireland Committee to clear up this whole topic by question and answer in a way which cannot be achieved at Question Time or on the Adjournment or in any other effective manner.
I have in my hand—but I shall not deal with them in any detail—the whole series of the statements which were made by the Secretary of State, from before the so-called ceasefire on 14th January to his statement on 11th February, when the cease-fire, as it is called, came into effect. Those statements were from the beginning puzzling. In the statement of 14th January it became clear that for some

259
reason a cease-fire would bring with it some form of formalised contacts between Her Majesty's Government and those whose abstention from crimes is misdescribed—for it is a very misleading term—as a cease-fire.
Perhaps I should quote only a phrase from the Secretary of State's statement—a statement made in Northern Ireland—on 22nd January, which included the expression,
"arrangements that might be made to ensure that any cease-fire did not break down".
That phrase—and those words were again repeated on the eve of the event of 5th February—enables me to illustrate very briefly what it is that must be debated and must be explained.
The Government would not for a moment accept that there is a cease-fire in Northern Ireland in the sense that two combatant bodies of similar status have come to an agreement, one with another, upon terms to cease fire. That is the natural and, so far as I know, the only proper connotation of the term "cease-fire". Consequently, the mere use of that phrase in the context of Northern Ireland is already itself a propaganda success for the Provisional IRA. Let us however accept, despite that—as Her Majesty's Government do—that the element on the one side is the cessation of violence and that on the other side is the very proper modification of the behaviour of authority and of Government in the light of the diminution or cessation of violence. Let us take the position exactly as the Government assert it—that cease-fire means that, on the one hand, violence does not continue and criminal acts cease to be perpetrated, while, on the other hand, the Government adapt their behaviour, very naturally, rationally and properly, to an alteration in the security situation.
We then face the implication of the terminology of which I have reminded the House:
"the arrangements … to ensure that any cease-fire does not break down".
What can be the meaning in the mouth of the Government of "arrangements to ensure" that violence is not resumed? The arrangements to ensure that violence is not resumed remain entirely in the hands of those who perpetrate violence.
260
Surely if any meaning lies behind such an expression, it can only be—at least so people argue in Northern Ireland, and I know not how to refute their argument—that there are known conditions, though kept secret from the public and this House, upon which the cessation of violence is dependent.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a little misleading to speak of the cessation of violence and that there has been no cessation of violence in parts of the Province—for example, in County Armagh, where violence involving the Regular Army, the UDR and the Provisional IRA has continued?
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend was right to interrupt me and to correct my expression. There has been no more than a diminution of most types of violence over the period which has been described by this extraordinary term "cease-fire". I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right and it is good that the House should be reminded of it.
I resume my point, which is that the continual references by the Government to arrangements to ensure that the ceasefire does not break down are such as to constitute, until there can be proper debate which elucidates what lies behind them, not merely an invitation but almost a compulsion to believe that, whatever the Government say, there is in fact a bargain with specific terms and that each side is policing the terms which the other side has accepted.
I am afraid that when, following the so-called cease-fire in the second week of February, the Government announced what those arrangements were—and I will not go into details of the extraordinary "incident centres" which were to be set up—the difficulty of acquitting the Government of having entered into terms with the men of violence in Northern Ireland became almost insuperable. In his statement of 11th February the Secretary of State, referring to the incident centres, said:
"There will be full consultation … with the security forces on these arrangements which will cover only incidents arising directly out of the cease-fire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1975; Vol. 885, c. 207–8.]

261
Again, those are words which are very difficult to interpret, to which it is almost impossible to attach any meaning, unless the cease-fire, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, represented a series of concessions made in form by the enemies of the State in Northern Ireland to which there corresponded concessions or terms made in form by Her Majesty's Government—not just the natural assumption, which everyone would make, that if things get better the behaviour of Government would be modified, but specific terms.
So I come straight back to last weekend, and I will quote from the same report following the murder of a policeman in Londonderry the words which were put out on Saturday night, and of course faithfully reproduced by the Press, by the Provisional IRA in Londonderry:
"The killing"—
that is, the murder of the policeman—
"was 'a direct result of breaches in the truce over the past two weeks when two houses were raided by the Army and one by a squad of plain clothes RUC men'."
I do not treat the communiqués of the Provisional IRA as having a higher degree of credibility than those issued during the late hostilities by Dr. Goebbels. These statements are of course acts of war. They are meant to deceive. They are meant to cause confusion. They are indeed aimed at the Government, for they are aimed at shaking the credibility of the Government and the confidence of the public in the truth of what the Secretary of State says and in the honesty of the Government's intentions. So it is not my purpose to say that I believe what these criminals, for their own criminal purpose, put out and what was printed by the Press. The point is a different one. It is that there is only one way in which Her Majesty's Government, with the assistance of this House, can reassert their own credibility and destroy that of the Provisional IRA, only one way in which they can create the proper background for the attempt at a more lasting constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland. And that, I repeat, is debate.
This House exists for debate. This House performs its function by debate. This House does its work by showing, either proving or disproving, that Her Majesty's Government have to all questions that can legitimately be put to them,
262
to all arguments that can be advanced against them, a tenable, rational reply which ought to convince the citizen.
In opposing this motion this afternoon, therefore, my hon. Friends and I, unlike many of those who—very properly, I make no criticism of them—take part in this terminal debate, are in no way speaking against the interests of the Government. On the contrary, the representatives of the Northern Ireland seats are the best friends in the Northern Ireland situation that Her Majesty's Government have. We are pleading in their interest much more than in ours, because, as for us, our constituents will say, "They have done their best, they have discharged their duty as best they could, but evidently it was Her Majesty's Government which would not answer and presumably had not got an answer."
What we are saying is in the interests of the Government—that they should use the device which never fails to re-establish the credibility, to re-establish the bona fides, to re-establish the logic of the acts of Government. There is no way in which they can do it so well as by voluntarily opening up this debate in the Northern Ireland Committee, promised and introduced with such a fanfare, and by doing so at once—doing so before we go away to a recess which we hope will not be punctuated by deeds such as that from which I have drawn the immediate illustration.
It is a plea for the Government to do something in their own interest which we make this afternoon in opposing this motion.
4.9 p.m.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I want to make a brief contribution to a very important subject before the House adjourns. I believe that the law relating to rape should and must be changed, and changed very urgently indeed, because the fact is that we now have cities living in fear.
There is a very curious dichotomy between public opinion outside the House and opinion inside the House. I have put down an Early-Day Motion suggesting that the law should be changed which has been signed by only 30-odd Members, yet I can assure the House that without a shadow of a doubt there are millions of people who are now appalled at the

263
state of the law regarding rape. I have received telegrams and petitions and letters by the hundred. In all my days in the House I have never known feelings to be as deep and as strong and I have never known people to be so profoundly disturbed. The reason is that people are now convinced that the law, as defined by the Law Lords, is such as to encourage rape and to discourage women from reporting it. I am utterly convinced beyond all doubt that the law must be changed, for three reasons.
First, the effect of the law as now confirmed by the Law Lords will be significantly to affect juries. Juries now do not simply have to decide that a woman was compelled to have sexual relations against her will. Juries must now decide whether the man who assaulted her genuinely believed that he was not assaulting her, no matter how irresponsible the grounds for that belief are. Those are the key and crucial words, "no matter how irresponsible the grounds for that belief are." We could have an absurd situation in which a rapist could appear before a court and the jury could believe the woman's evidence that she was raped but that same jury, if it believed that the man genuinely thought he was not raping the woman, however irrational the grounds for that belief, would be unable to convict.
What a crazy situation. What an absurd situation. What an impossible situation for juries. The effect on juries will be significant. What about the effect on potential rapists? Far too often men generally, with their deeply ingrained prejudices, tend to laugh at the subject because many men are very stupid about sexual discrimination. Many men are very stupid about rape. Many men are very stupid about the relationship of thugs to women. They tend to categorise rape as the kind of situation involving people who have played about with sexual relations and the man perhaps has gone a little too far. But rape is not like that.
Rape is a vicious, evil and degrading assault by a strong man on a woman. It is a victory for strength over weakness. It is villainy run riot. Any law which encourages this kind of thuggery should be changed. What will happen to women when they are assaulted? They will be far more reluctant to come forward
264
because it is not solely a matter of the women being faced by a defence lawyer. Instead they will be faced with their assailants who can accuse the women of wanting to be involved. That is entirely wrong. Women will be even more reluctant to complain to the police.
If women who are raped are not prepared to complain we shall never catch the rapists. If we cannot catch the rapists they will go on raping. The figures for rape have increased by 34 per cent. in four years. Over half the men who committed rape had no proceedings taken against them. Unless we change the law the rape figures will rocket, while the number of women reporting rape will drift downwards. We are faced with a situation in which law and order has gone mad.
So, the effect of the law, if it is not changed, will be first on juries, second on rapists and third on women. I urge the House to bring pressure to bear on the Home Secretary and on the Government to change the law. If it is not changed the effects will be catastrophic.
I return to the point about the dichotomy between public opinion outside and opinion in the House. I have the greatest respect for hon. Members but they do not fully appreciate how inflamed public opinion is on this subject. They do not realise the extent of the fears in the minds of women and in the minds of many men who are affected by the whole situation. For me, to receive telegrams, petitions and letters from student unions, trade unions, women's organisations, even Conservative associations and hundreds of individuals is a clear indication of the extent to which public opinion is alarmed.
The Government will flout public opinion unless they are prepared to take action. They ought not to refer the matter in a leisurely way to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, fine though that may be. That is a longer-term approach which would be acceptable to the House, but it will not solve the immediate problem. I beg the Leader of the House to make representations to the Home Secretary about a change in the law to ensure that any man who is accused of raping a woman is not allowed to advance a defence on irresponsible grounds. The law must be changed so that it is incumbent upon any man so

265
accused to base his defence on responsible grounds. That is what the law should be, and that is what I hope this House will recommend to the Government.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I do not think it would be right for the House to accede to the motion proposed by the Lord President without there being adequate discussion of the disastrous and declining economic state of the country.
Never in my adult life have I seen a situation in which the country has declined as rapidly as it has recently. This is a matter affecting all parties and all Members. The motion before us is that we should adjourn for a fortnight. I ask the House to consider what has occurred in the past fortnight. In the past 14 days, the pound has deteriorated to its lowest ever level. We have major strikes in many of our large industries. We have inflation at a rate which no civilised country has been able to stand for long. I do not think that any parliamentary democracy has been able to exist for an extended period with a rate of inflation such as that which we are now suffering. Yet it is proposed that we should adjourn without any adequate steps being taken to deal with the situation.
Mr. Edward Short: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present at Question Time when the Prime Minister said that it was hoped next week to find time for a whole day's debate on the economy.
Mr. Hooson: I was present. I do not think that that is sufficient. There has been a steady deterioration in the state of the country. We have fooled ourselves that what happens to other countries cannot happen to us. We have read of the Weimar Republic and the way in which members of the Assembly there discussed irrelevancies when their economy was going to pot, creating the ideal conditions for a dictatorship. Are we to be in the same position?
We have recently been discussing the Industry Bill. Important or otherwise as that may be, the provision of £450 million in that Bill bears no relevance to the present situation because if inflation continues the whole of our economy will be undermined. If we have enormous
266
unemployment, which could be another consequence, that measure would be irrelevant. The truth is that to our electorate outside, much of what the House of Commons is discussing appears to be totally irrelevant to the situation facing us.
I was at a weekend conference last weekend at Ditchley Park at which there were some very distinguished representatives from many parts of the world, all very friendly to our country and representing a very wide spectrum of views. Universally they took an extremely gloomy view of our prospects. I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that it is up to this country to put its own house in order. Whether we are in or out of the Common Market, it is what we do at home that matters. But the truth is that we are not doing anything.
Mr. Edward Short: Rubbish.
Mr. Hooson: That is not true. The situation is deteriorating at a very great rate. The Lord President, from a sedentary position, seems to pay no attention to the fact that the pound is deteriorating at a rate at which it has never deteriorated before.
Mr. Short: The hon. and learned Member is not helping it.
Mr. Hooson: May I tell the Lord President that if he is so remote from economic reality that he thinks that a speech from a back bencher in the House of Commons causes the pound to deteriorate so quickly, he is talking absolute nonsense.
The truth is that there are certain highly unpleasant things which the House as a whole has now to face. The time for playing party politics on this issue is over. We have reached a stage where it is too late to have a statutory prices and incomes policy. The Government are faced with the almost inevitable decision whether to have a total freeze in the next few weeks.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Rubbish.
Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) can shout "Rubbish" but this country is dependent on foreign loans to the extent of 5 per cent. of its expenditure. We

267
have to consider the consequences if those loans are withdrawn, as they might easily be should the pound continue to deteriorate. What then? The hon. Member shouted "Rubbish", but the truth is that in this country at the present time we still have not faced reality. This applies to all parties. I do not exempt one party as against another in this situation. It is up to hon. Members, back benchers though we may be, to show that some of us are aware of the rapid deterioration.
The Secretary of State for the Environment spoke in the country on either Friday or Saturday on the question of local government expenditure. He said that there had to be a total standstill during the coming year. He was attacked yesterday by the General Secretary of NALGO, the trade union principally concerned. When it is appreciated that over 50 per cent. of local government expenditure is on salaries and wages, what does a standstill mean? If it means what it is stated to be—a standstill in expenditure—it means the cutting back rapidly of services. If salaries and wages are insured against the effect of inflation—and this is what the built-in provisions for automatic increases amount to—it means that the 50 per cent. will go up rapidly as a proportion of total expenditure, and the only way to maintain a standstill is to cut down on services. This situation merely illustrates the Government's failure to come to grips with the fact that it is the explosion in wages and salaries above anything else that is the present cause of inflation.
In the last few years we have seen the creation of a huge bureaucratic superstructure in our country, and the last Conservative administration was as responsible as any for this. Civil Service rates of pay are vastly in excess of what they were four years ago. Local government rates of pay have increased enormously, as have the administrative rates of pay in the National Health Service. These rates of pay are not for people in creative or productive industry and they throw a tremendous strain on this country. This is partly why we are living beyond our means.
The Government should put their cards on the table before this House and face the reality of the situation. Is there any way at the present time of restoring confidence
268
abroad other than the imposition of Draconian measures such as I suggest—a total freeze on wages and salaries while the whole situation facing the country is considered?
As Members of Parliament we should consider whether it is our duty to try to bury our differences as best we can and to agree upon a programme that will enable this country to survive. The alternative seems to me to be to lurch, as the Weimar Republic did, from one high degree of inflation into an even higher degree of inflation, until in the end nobody is prepared to take the steps necessary to put matters right.
Mr. Frank Hooky: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that it was not inflation but savage deflation that destroyed the Weimar Republic. Inflation occurred at the outset and had been long overcome. It was the fact of having three million unemployed, not inflation, that destroyed the Weimar Republic.
Mr. Hooson: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Weirman Republic took no adequate steps to deal with inflation and it was when it had allowed matters to drift for a long time that the savage deflation occurred, causing the country to become ripe for take-over by either an extreme Right-wing or an extreme Left-wing organisation.
I submit that it would be wrong for the House to agree to the motion to adjourn until we have had some guidance from the Government about the steps they are prepared to take. If the deterioration of the last fortnight is matched by the deterioration from now until 9th June, we shall by then be in desperate straits indeed.
I would join with right hon. and hon. Members in other parts of the House though perhaps on different grounds in resisting the motion.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not think we should accede to the motion before the House until the Government have told us a little more about their intentions concerning some of the unfinished business. Before this House returns from the recess on 9th June, a great deal of business will have taken

269
place. That business is not unrelated to some 30 regulations which the Scrutiny Committee has recommended that this House should debate. Not only should that business be discussed, but there are also some unfinished matters relating to the 21 debates that this House has so far had on EEC orders, and matters related to them, since the middle of last summer. It may be surprising to some people that this House has had 21 debates. Very few of those debates have been reported in any sense at all in the Press, and hardly any on the radio or television, perhaps because they have been almost entirely late at night and cut by the Government to a maximum of one and a half hours.
The other matter to which I should like to refer is that hon. Members usually get representations from members of the public concerning White Papers, even draft Statutory Instruments, Bills, and so on. All these are readily obtainable, and pressure groups and members of the public are able to buy them, read them, and see how their interests are affected. But that is not the position concerning the regulations which we have debated and those which we have not debated. They are not available to the general public at Her Majesty's Stationery Office and, alas, they are sometimes available only just in time to hon. Members.
I pointed out, in the debate on 3rd December last, that I was not able to get a very important Government Explanatory Memorandum on the basic energy document of the EEC—R/1472/73—until 24 hours before the debate took place. Later in my remarks—and I have given notice of this to the Lord President and to the Minister of State for the Treasury—I wish to draw the attention of the House to a previous explanatory memorandum which I believe was wholly misleading and which may have misled even the Minister of State who opened the debate in question.
There are many other matters which have gone through this House and which are still technically on the Order Paper. On 3rd February 1975, this House discussed a motion to annul the Import Duties (General) Order 1975 which put up the rate of levy and tax on a great many imported foods. Unfortunately, fewer than 40 Members voted on that
270
occasion. It was put on the Order Paper again and it appeared for several days afterwards. It has become what is technically known as a dropped order.
It may be of interest to the Minister of Agriculture, who is currently making a great many speeches on food prices, to see the Answers to Questions on 1st May 1975 when his Under-Secretary admitted that levies on New Zealand cheese imports were no less than 28p per lb. If this House reactivated that order and debated it, I have no doubt that the Government would have to explain why, in answer to Questions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am being as liberal as I can, but the hon. Gentleman must address himself to whether the House should or should not accept the motion before it.
Mr. Spearing: I am addressing my remarks to the fact that the dropped order to which I have referred should be debated before we go into recess on the date proposed in the motion. If the Lord President feels that we should debate it before the motion comes into effect, I hope that he will put it on the Order Paper for next week.
My next request is that my right hon. Friend should do the same in respect of the EEC budget. We have had two EEC budgets since joining the EEC. Neither of them has been debated in this House. The Lord President put down matters relating to the budget for debate on 19th December of last year. Since that date, he has promised the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that we shall have a debate on the budget. However, it looks as though we shall not have that debate before we go into recess. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a debate on the budget next week before the motion comes into effect.
I remind the House that the budget consisted of 10 lbs. of documents. It was put before us last December, and we have not yet debated it. My right hon. Friend knows that in this package there are many figures which would be of great interest to the British people in the coming weeks. For some of the figures which would interest them most, they might search in vain. In order to discover some of the facts about the budget,

271
it was necessary for me to ask Questions on 27th February about the guarantee fund. I shall not weary the House by going through them in detail. But, despite the 10 lbs. of documents which we have still to debate, the breakdown of the European Agricultural Insurance and Guarantee Fund does not appear in those documents, and I had to ask a Question on 13th March the Answer to which revealed that the EEC will give support to tobacco growing in the Community of some £70 million, which is about the sum that it spends on providing surplus grain to overseas countries in need.
The other matter which we should debate and which has been technically before this House is Command Paper 6033, the Report of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. This is of great significance to the House because it shows what money has been spent on behalf of the British public in this country in the last year, 1974, in respect of agricultural intervention. We read in Table K that £14 million has been spent on production subsidies on cereals used for starch, and so on. I should have thought that the fact that £14 million of public money had been spent in this country on the production of starch from cereals merited debate in this House and that, if the Lord President could arrange a debate next week before the recess, it would be greatly appreciated by this House and by the British public.
In answer to a Written Question on 6th May, the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me that the £14 million related to 746,000 tons of maize and 49,000 tons of wheat and wheat flour which were used for the production of starch and 41,000 tons of maize used for the production of maize grits for brewing beer. I do not suggest that the people who received those subsidies made money out of them. I am sure that the £14 million represented the difference between the cost of other raw materials and the cost of this foodstuff which was for human or animal consumption. However, the Minister of State added:
"It is not normal practice to publish detailed information relating to bodies or persons to whom payment of subsidies is made." — [Official Report, 6th May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 423.]
So we have the situation where £14 million of public money has been spent
272
in providing subsidies to persons or bodies whose business is producing starch, brewers' maize, and a substance known as quellmehl, and we do not know who they are.
I have described this as public money. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell the House whether it is public money from this House or from the EEC. The intervention report bears the Royal Arms on the front of it, and the usual inscription, "Honi soit qui mal y pense"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now arguing his Common Market case—
Mr. Powell: And very well.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be so. It is not for me to say. However, the motion is to deal with the Adjournment.
Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be clear about your ruling. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued a good case to say why this House should not go into recess until it had considered an important matter. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is doing precisely that. In order to do it, he has to refer to documents and information available to him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged for the hon. Gentleman's help, but I must advise him that it is not the effect which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has upon him which is important at the moment. It is the effect which the hon. Gentleman has on me. I want to be fair to everyone, but I must ask the hon. Member for Newham, South to keep to the motion.
Mr. Spearing: I shall endeavour to do so. However, any decision about whether we go into recess on Friday of next week must surely depend on the business before us.
It is not within my knowledge that a speaker in a debate on which a Question is put need necessarily come down on the side of the "Ayes" or that of the "Noes". Hon. Members need to have the relevant considerations before them in order to decide whether to vote "Aye" or "No". It may be that some of my

273
arguments will reinforce the reasons for a number of right hon. and hon. Members voting "No" on this occasion. Therefore, I submit, in requesting the Lord President to arrange time for us to debate these matters of importance, that my right hon. Friend's reply will greatly affect our decision about whether we should go into recess on Friday week.
The final matter to which I refer is one of which I have given notice to my right hon. Friend and which I contemplated raising under Standing Order No. 9. It relates to a debate that we had on 12th March about the European Monetary Co-operation Fund. In the course of that debate, I did something which a number of hon. Members recognised as being relatively rare. I accused the Government of not being frank with the House and of not providing correct information. Since that date, the Committee on EEC Secondary Legislation has published a report which made it clear in Questions Nos. 213 and 214 in the Minutes of Evidence that it had taken on 25th February that the Minister of State at the Treasury had made statements which turned out not to be correct.
In my view, this matter should be cleared up before the House goes into recess. The point of issue is whether this country is bound by a certain ruling of the EEC concerned with economic and monetary union and a fund establishing a European monetary union.
I refer to Regulation 907 of the Council which states that the European Monetary Co-operation Fund is intended to achieve economic and monetary union and the progressive harmonisation of member States' economies. However, before that Select Committee the Minister of State in answer to a question about economic and monetary union, from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said:
"I do not think anybody at this stage is thinking of this"—
the fund—
"as a means to that particular end."
When my right hon. Friend winds up the debate, will he either tell us that we can debate this subject again before we go into recess or, if he has obtained the information of which I have given notice, make it quite clear whether this country is bound to the objectives of the European
274
Monetary Co-operation Fund set out in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 5th April 1973 which concludes that,
"This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States."
4.41 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I, too, believe that we should not adjourn, at least until we have had an economic package from the Government. I strongly support the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who spoke of this earlier.
I must first dispense with the sedentary remarks of the Lord President, that in some ways the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was damaging, that it threatened to bring sterling lower and that he should not have dared to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. The obvious answer to that is that the Lord President intervened in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech to promise a debate next week when all hon. Gentlemen would be able to say what they think, which clearly would be, under his own definition, damaging to sterling. But I pass that by. That is a point on which I do not wish to dwell.
I wish to make the fundamental point that the value of the pound is not determined by what people say in or outside the House or in the newspapers. It is determined by how many people wish to buy pounds and how many people wish to sell them. The supply and demand of currency is what will determine whether is goes up and down in future weeks. In truth, there is no difference between the value of the pound and the value of bricks, beer or beef. If there is an oversupply of these commodities, the price goes down. If there is a shortage, the price goes up. Therefore, the only factors which can influence the value of the pound are whether there is an over supply of pounds and whether there is a shortage of those who wish to buy them or, on the contrary, a surplus.
It must, therefore, be obvious that the reason for the fall in the value of the pound, which has been 4 per cent. for the last week or so, is not the result of anything that anybody has said. It has not been caused by the actions of speculators or noble Lords in another place making speeches. The Prime Minister in

275
his celebrated broadcast on Sunday used an extraordinary expression. He said that it was the fault of unknown persons' neurosis—neurosis in the City, neurosis in another place and neurosis in the Press and media. It is not the fault of neurosis. It is the fault of nobody but the Government.
For the Government to seek to ride out their responsibilities is to evade the trust which was placed in them by those who put them in office. They cannot seek to claim that we should not raise this matter and that we should not discuss it. It is right that we should not adjourn. We should not go into recess until the Government have announced what they will do, if anything, about their prime responsibility for the great economic damage that their policy, and their policy alone, might create for this country.
The value of the pound is determined by supply and demand of pounds. The basic cause of our problem is the supply of pounds due to the enormous borrowing requirement in the Budget. I make no party point. Other hon. Gentlemen will be able to endorse that I made the same criticism, to a lesser degree, of Budgets under the Conservative administration.
It is this growing propensity to spend what we have not got which is causing the deepening economic crisis in this country. On top of this we fear—and this is another reason why I do not want the House to rise—that the costs of the Government's industrial policies have not been included in the Estimates. The cost of the National Enterprise Board is £50 million in the Estimates. It is now to carry British Leyland, which might involve hundreds of millions of pounds in the coming financial year. There is nothing in the Estimates for the nationalisation of shipbuilding or aircraft. There is nothing in the Estimates for the Community Land Bill. There is nothing in the Estimates for the nationalisation of the oil royalties in the North Sea.
Nobody has confidence in the Chancellor's housekeeping. It has not been overlooked abroad that the Chancellor's forecast deficit of £2,700 million turned out, in the event, to be £7,600 million. With the additions that I have just mentioned,
276
what will be the outturn for the Budget deficit for 1975?
The considerations which give rise to the worry about the stability of our currency are the activities of the Secretary of State for Industry, including his wild attacks on the private enterprise system which keeps the economy afloat in this country; the profligate, rotten housekeeping of the Chancellor, who has allowed expenditure to get out of control; and the actions of the other spending Ministers who have allowed their budgets to get right away from them.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment, who at least has said that local authority expenditure must be curtailed, but he is the one who allowed housing subsidies to reach the staggering total of £3,900 million in the current year. However, the sinner who has repented is better than one who has not.
This is a problem which the Government must attend to. Yet here we are a few days before we rise talking about Clay Cross—I thought we had been talking about hare-coursing but perhaps that has been dropped—and about a whole series of trivia and things which are irrelevant to this major, fundamental and basic problem which faces the country, namely, the declining value of our currency.
There is only one thing that the Government, or indeed anybody, can do to put the matter right. There is only one thing that will have any impact on the situation, and that is for the Government—preferably the Prime Minister—to come to the Box and make a statement about the cuts that he proposes to make in public spending and, if necessary, the increased taxation which he proposes to impose.
There is one matter on which I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. He said that perhaps there should be a coalition of all those who hold the British economy dear, so that they could again impose a statutory prices and incomes policy. I am afraid that he is putting his head in the sand. If he believes that we can have a borrowing requirement of £9,000 million rising to we know not what, and bottle it up with a law, after the experience of the prices and incomes policy of my right

277
hon. Friends in 1973 and 1974 and of the Labour Government in the 1960s, he is doing damage to the very idea of a coalition by making it clear that if he is part of any coalition he will make sure that it cannot succeed. The measures that he advocated could never succeed in those circumstances.
Mr. Hooson: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. When he talks of curtailing public expenditure, he must realise that the biggest components of public expenditure are wages and salaries. The hon. Gentleman has not even indicated how he would deal with those components. That is what needs to be dealt with. I suggested that we were faced with a situation in which we would have to have a total freeze to see what could be done. This is the nub of the question. While people are insured against inflation by various means—even under the social contract—how does the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with these components of public expenditure?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. and learned Gentleman would make a rotten doctor. He would be scratching off the spots and failing to observe that the disease was getting worse and worse. Any coalition which concentrates on scratching off the spots will do us a disservice. Any party which advocates that policy is doing us a disservice. There are no easy options. There is no easy, painless way out.
The answer requires massive cuts in public expenditure and higher taxation. It will cause unemployment, distress and a reduction in the standard of living—certainly, a reduction in the rate of growth of real incomes. That is the option which faces the House.
We should not pack up our bags and go on holiday until the Government have faced up to their responsibilities and done something to save the nation from the gloom which threatens it for the future.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I oppose the motion, but I assure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I do not have sufficient energy to go to the Division Lobby to vote against it.
I listened with foreboding to the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the
278
hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). We must make it clear from the Labour benches that there can be no coalition, no grouping in the House—not only now but for the foreseeable future—between Labour Members, elected on our manifesto, and Opposition Members.
I listened to those speeches with foreboding because I was disturbed to think that the Government could be pressurised and panicked into taking the type of Draconian measures which could make certain that we would not solve our economic difficulties. Draconian measures would perhaps work if people were not people. We must rely on the good sense of the British people and learn from the past that there can be no solution without their consent.
I was disturbed to hear the proposal for a statutory wage freeze. If there begins to be talk of such a freeze, present claims and settlements will be inflated in anticipation of it.
Mr. John Page: They could not be inflated any more.
Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. A great degree of moderation is being exercised because of the loyalty of trade union officials towards the Labour Government.
After a freeze, all the practical difficulties would arise again, with all the sense of injustice. As soon as the freeze was applied, one group after another, very often in the public service and the lowest paid, would come to hon. Members on both sides of the House to complain that they had just been caught and to argue their case. Hon. Members would pressurise the Government to make exceptions for such groups. In the middle of the freeze period, or towards the end, the whole policy would have to be reassessed because the Government would face the twin force of a group which both felt a sense of injustice and was industrially strong. Given those two things occurring together, there would be an industrial confrontation, and almost certainly the Government would be defeated. Then the policy would be in ruins.
The only hope is to get the support of working people and their organisations for a modicum of wage restraint. There can be no reliance on statutory pay policies

279
to achieve it, and there can be no immediate resort to Draconian measures, because such measures would be taken as a signal by the unions and working people immediately to increase their wage demands. Unless the people accept economic measures as being essential for the survival of Britain, the measures cannot work.
Because of technology and the closely-knit type of industrial society in which we live, some small groups of workers have a great deal of power, which must be taken as a reality. Against that background, talk of wage freezes and Draconian measures is theoretical.
I came into the Chamber to hear the advertised statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on industrial democracy. Why was that statement not made? I hope that we shall have an encouraging statement before the Adjournment, a statement that the Government will act as quickly as possible to bring about industrial democracy. When the Government do not have much money to spend, this is an appropriate time for us to deal with legislation which will not involve expenditure and yet could bring about an irreversible shift in the balance of power in favour of working people. Many of us on the Labour benches very much hope that my right hon. Friend will make a statement shortly and that it will contain no talk of inquiries of deferment, but only of action.
That leads me to my final question. Are we to have a settlement of the dispute between the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry before we adjourn a week on Friday? Again, this is a very important matter. When we were in Opposition we promised the steel workers that there would be a review of the proposals contained in the then administration's White Paper. That promise was also made at the election, and Lord Beswick carried it out on behalf of the Secretary of State for Industry. The review was certainly favourable to the workers at Shelton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). Now the Government are said to have no legal right to issue a directive to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation
280
to ensure that the jobs of the workers are safeguarded.
If the Government have no power, the promises should not have been made in the first place and the review should not have been undertaken. However, the review has been undertaken and the promises have been made. In view of the statements and the hope given from this House, quite clearly if the Government do not have the power to implement them, they must bring in legislation to take it as quickly as possible. They must legislate to enable them to fulfil the promises made to the steel workers and to implement the decision resulting from the review.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to satisfy me on these points. I hope that in the coming months the Government will keep their nerve and not give way to the panic measures that are being proposed by the Opposition. I hope that the Government will keep on telling the Conservatives that they will undermine confidence abroad with their talk of gloom and disaster, and I hope that they will continue to try to secure the full support of the British working people for the economic policies they are having to pursue.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I had a moment or two to prepare a short speech, and I propose to be brief. I hope that the Leader of the House heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and that he will respond to them. I do not go so far as to say that the law is as the hon. Member described it. I doubt whether what he said is correct. But there is undoubtedly much public anxiety on the matter and the hon. Member did nothing to allay that—in fact, I suspect that he has inflamed it. In view of that the Lord President should take the opportunity of making a clear statement of the law. If he cannot do that in concise terms, he should assure the House that a statement of authority will be made by one of the Law Officers in order to eliminate doubt and misplaced or exaggerated anxiety.
I want to do what I do not normally do on these occasions and that is to argue that the recess is not long enough. I have no particular quarrel with the date

281
on which it is to begin—it is essential that we should examine the economy in the debate planned for Thursday—but the Government, and the Leader of the House in particular, are expecting too much of us and of themselves in confining the recess to the relatively short period proposed in the motion.
The first and least important reason for my saying that is that I suspect that some hon. Members—perhaps even all hon. Members—will want to take an active part in the referendum campaign which will effectively be carried on during the recess. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who seems so fond of swinging from comma to comma in the Common Market regulations, will no doubt be taking an active part in the campaign. Other Members will no doubt be doing their best.
It will not be the kind of recess during which Cabinet Ministers will be able to refresh themselves in whatever way Cabinet Ministers in this Government carry out that practice. They will be hyperactive, I suspect, and they will not benefit from the recess in any way. They will be even more tired at the end of it than they are already—and some of them are fairly tired now.
The Leader of the House is not noted for his super-abundance of energy. The Government Chief Whip is so exhausted that he slumped down on the Opposition Front Bench just now before eventually finding his way back to his correct place. Of course, he has a lot to put up with. We are glad to see the Secretary of State for Employment back after a brief convalescence, but no doubt he could do with additional rest. Then there is the Secretary of State for Industry. Everyone would like to see him take a good rest.
The opportunity which should be taken by those who are running the country's affairs to recuperate from their exertions, recover their balance, see whether they can find their missing marbles, and do all the other things the recess gives them chance to do, will be denied them. The campaign for this unnecessary referendum will intrude into the recess, which should therefore be extended for a week. The Prime Minister, in particular, should have the opportunity to rest. The impression he left upon the country after his television appearance was that he was a tired
282
man and that our affairs were not necessarily in the best hands so long as they were in the hands of a man so tired.
I see no reason to believe that the moment the referendum campaign is over the Prime Minister's troubles will be at an end. He may regard a referendum vote in favour of the Government's recommendations as a colossal vote of confidence in himself, and being the Prime Minister that probably is how he will regard it. But there is more to it than that, and more to the consequence of the vote than that. Whichever way the vote goes, there will have to be a change in the composition of this administration. Should the vote go against continued British membership of the EEC, the matter could be forced upon the Prime Minister by the unwillingness of some of his colleagues to remain in the Cabinet. That will give him a problem of reconstruction and reshuffle which Parliament and the country would be most reluctant to see arising from present circumstances.
If the vote goes the way the majority of us and most of the country hope it will, the Prime Minister will still not be relieved of the responsibility of making a change in his team. He may need a week or so to do that. There is therefore good reason for giving him that additional period of grace and for providing him with time to come to the House with a coherent set of plans prepared to deal with the situation which should have been dealt with so long ago.
The crisis of confidence in the pound will not be swept away by the debate on Thursday. To do that will need action, determination and resolution on the part of the country's leaders, and they will not muster those qualities in six months' of sitting on the Treasury bench listening to debate. It will take work which should have been started long since and which must be started now. If those efforts are to carry confidence they will need to be presented to the world as being carefully considered and carrying all the conviction of a logical, sensible and non-political reaction to the desperate plight of the country.
The Secretary of State for the Environment used the expression "the party is over". It might have been more to the point if he had made the remark at the Cabinet table, because the party is over

283
for those who believe that this country can any longer afford the enormous inflationary pressures which are built into the Government's policies. There must be a change. The country needs leaders who will speak for Britain, and if an extra week's thought gets us any nearer that, as it could, the House should not begrudge itself the time for thinking.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: I am sure that all those concrete prescriptions for dealing with our economic ills made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will be of great assistance to our Treasury Ministers and others concerned with finding those solutions.
This morning, in the Court of Appeal, judgment was reached in the case of Hubbard v. Pitt. This was an appeal from a decision reached some months ago relating to non-industrial picketing, namely demonstrations by people other than in pursuit of a trade dispute. Picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute is covered by statute and is protected. But picketing or demonstrating, other than in pursuit of a trade dispute, is not so protected. It is subject to the common law, and the law, as is usual with English common law, is rather vague.
The result of the decision this morning is that it is now clear—it was previously unclear—that no one has a right to do anything on the highway, which includes the pavement, except to pass along it and to engage in restricted activities absolutely incidental thereto.
That decision means that many activities which are carried out every day of the week in the country under the very eyes and noses of the police, with police permission, full acquiescence and no interference, are clearly now unlawful. More seriously, perhaps, those who agree among themselves to carry out those demonstrations are, because the action is unlawful, guilty of criminal conspiracy. I can relate this subject to the recess more closely by saying that many hon. Members and their supporters on one side or other of the referendum campaign will, as a result of this morning's decision, clearly be engaged in unlawful activities in demonstrating their support for, or opposition
284
to, membership of the Common Market during the next fortnight. In arranging such demonstrations some of them at least will be guilty of criminal conspiracy.
The case which concluded this morning arose from an incident in my constituency, which is why I take a special interest in it. I was glad that Lord Denning dissented this morning from the majority verdict of two to one. It is encouraging that Lord Denning was able to find that even the law as it now stands, without statutory intervention, should permit a person to demonstrate on the highway provided that he does not obstruct the highway or cause a direct nuisance—other than merely by demonstrating—to other persons using the highway. This morning he seems to have demonstrated what is called in the legal profession judicial valour, or the extension of a precedent, the broadening of a precedent, rather than the narrowing of it from case to case.
As a result of this morning's decision, I think that it is incumbent upon the Lord President—I think of him as much in his capacity as chairman of the legislation committee of the Cabinet as I think of him as Lord President—to take an early opportunity to declare that the Government will attach a clause to an early Bill dealing with the civil and criminal law, or the nearest Bill to that subject which will come in the next year, so as to remove this subject from legal uncertainty and to provide for it by statute.
It is clear that some subjects about which there are demonstrations have nothing to do with trade disputes but are just as important as, or even more important than, a trade dispute. Anyone demonstrating in 1956 about Suez could hardly be said to have been demonstrating about an unimportant subject. Therefore, it is as important to protect the citizen's right to demonstrate on such matters as it is to protect his right to demonstrate in furtherance of a trade dispute.
There is a more serious aspect of the question created or confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeal this morning. Throughout the country demonstrations are taking place every day of the week. The police permit them to

285
happen. The police permitted the incident in my constituency to happen. Therefore we have a situation in which the public do not know whether action will be taken against them by the police, because the police can, if they choose, take that action. The police have always had a wide discretion in bringing prosecutions. But we should limit that discretion to the greatest extent practicable because it is contrary to the rule of law and good democratic practices that the public should feel not only that they are in the grip of the law but that they are in the grip of a too wide discretion to apply the law which is placed in the hands of the police.
Therefore, I ask the Lord President in his capacity as chairman of the legislation committee to take note that there is clearly since this morning a need to clarify this aspect of the law by statute and to take the earliest legislative opportunity to correct the position adopted this morning by the Court of Appeal.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I submit that we should not adjourn on Friday week in view of the urgent and desperate situation of the inshore fishing industry.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture say in the House recently that he had acquainted the EEC Commission of the necessity to change its fisheries policy. That is to be welcomed. I hope that that will succeed. However, that is a long-range proposal.
I wish to mention the question of extending the fishing limit to 50 miles, which is demanded by the inshore fishermen. The reply on each occasion was that we could not take unilateral action. I investigated this matter in the 1960s when I was serving in local government. We asked the Government of the day to extend the limit to 12 miles. Invariably the reply was that the Government did not wish to take unilateral action. Britain was one of the last of the North Sea countries to extend the fishing limit to 12 miles.
It is no use the Minister of Agriculture replying that he might obtain a good agreement at the Conference on the Law of the Sea, as the end of inshore fishing, especially for herring, might be in sight
286
within weeks rather than months. It would be small consolation if at the end of that time a sound agreement had been reached at that conference.
The Government must be aware of the depredations made by foreign vessels. The Danes are the worst offenders, although the Norwegians and Russians also offend by fishing on an industrial scale and denuding the fish stocks. It will be a tremendous loss to our food supplies, as well as to the industry, if the fish disappear. The industry is going through a bad time. The Government should consider imposing a moratorium on the repayments for fishing vessels, which are very high—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if he would occasionally link his remarks to the motion about the recess it would be a great help.
Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For that reason, before the House goes into recess there is urgent need for a debate on this subject. If the Government do not place a moratorium on the repayments, they will be obliged to repossess the vessels, which would be an impossible situation. The fishermen are finding it very hard to make the repayments. I ask that we do not adjourn until we have had a debate on the fishing industry.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I, too, appeal to the Lord President not to adjourn the House until we have had an opportunity to discuss the management of the exchange rate. We heard from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) his view of what determines the exchange rate of sterling. We read daily in our newspapers that the Bank of England, "authority", the Treasury or the Government broker has intervened or has not intervened in the market, has intervened slightly or intends to intervene, and so on.
Although I support the referendum and shall do all I can to persuade the people I know to hang on to their self-determination and vote "No", I feel reluctant to go home until we have had a debate on the mechanism of the management of the exchange rate.

287
This morning The Times referred to possible light Bank of England intervention to slow down the decline in sterling. Elsewhere I read that there was an intervention "for technical reasons". As a back bencher I feel the need to explore the executive control of sterling and the exchange rate. The way that sterling is managed has vital implications for our balance of payments and our economic strategy.
Some years ago there was much more direct intervention. Indeed, there was intervention on both spot and forward sterling. Then the pound was floated, and that was one price we had to pay for Common Market entry. We were told that the floating of the pound would enable Britain to become more competitive, but the 20 per cent. immediate devaluation of the pound when it was floated made a considerable contribution to our £2,400 million annual deficit with the Common Market countries. I am reluctant to go back to the beautiful city of Bristol while these machinations are going on.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is not here, but I hope he will accept what I say in the spirit in which I say it. He insulted our intelligence when he insisted that the value of sterling was determined simply by supply and demand. Even when our exports and imports have been in a healthy position—in 1961 Britain's trade performance was extremely good—there has been ample evidence of the massive movement of speculative funds. Speculators felt that they could make a profit by moving into a market, thereby creating the downward slide of sterling, and then coming back into sterling and making profits—many would say obscene profits. Since the float, and especially in the last few weeks, it has almost looked as though there is no executive policy. At least, I find it difficult to discern any policy.
Mr. Hooson: Is it not a feature of the present situation that there is little evidence of speculation? Considering the state of sterling, how can any speculator have made money out of sterling recently?
Mr. Thomas: One finds, if one looks at previous speculation against sterling by British companies, multinational companies
288
and British banks, that we did not know about that speculation until after the event. We always get a post-mortem. I am convinced that speculation is going on at the moment and that when the speculators have driven the pound sufficiently low they will come back and make a good profit. I am not so much concerned with that as with the mechanism for controlling the parity of sterling.
In recent weeks it has been difficult to discern any policy. Towards the end of April, according to the Financial Times, the Bank of England was keeping its hand on the tiller. The custom is to use these naval metaphors—I do not know whether they come from the former Leader of the Opposition. At the end of April the banks or the authorities—we are never quite sure who—were deliberately intervening in the market and pushing up the rate. Since then, according to all the reports, the Bank of England has refused to intervene. It is now being said that the Bank of England is deliberately doing this and will continue to do so until the day of the referendum.
The Lord President should respond to that challenge and make clear whether that is so. Many of us are concerned that before long it will be suggested that the Bank has been told not to intervene, that sterling will move downwards until the referendum, and that those who wish to bring Britain out of Europe will be told that a vote against the market is a vote against sterling. There is plenty of evidence that that is happening.
It has been shown time and again that to allow sterling to float downwards is detrimental to our balance of trade. Our exports are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in price to enable increased prices to be charged to meet the reduction in foreign currency earnings, and the rapid increase in import prices has been the main cause of the increase in the cost of living at home. I should like to see a thorough-ranging debate before the Adjournment on these and related matters.
We can no longer leave it to the City of London to continue with its laissez-faire ideas. The limited invisible earnings of the City cannot justify a continuation of the laissez-faire approach.

289
In this crisis situation we need far more rigid controls over the export of capital, linked with strict and discriminating import controls. Those measures are essential if we are to meet the present economic crisis. Not least important is to move back from the policy of the floating pound and to impose direct measures for keeping the pound in reasonable parity with other currencies, with direct intervention as part of executive policy.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The House should not agree to the motion for several reasons. If the House were to follow the advice given by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), it would find itself in a difficult situation. I would rather trust myself to the economists of the City of London than to the views put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
There are three other reasons for us not to adjourn. The first is that the Secretary of State for the Environment should come to the House and explain in more detail the reasoning behind his speech in Manchester last week stating that "the party is over". Is he supporting the interesting article in the Observer on Sunday by Messrs. Booker and Gray, who said, far more eloquently than anyone in the House, that there is sheer nonsense in local government housing finance when authorities such as the London Borough of Camden are building houses and flats at an economic rent in excess of £100 a week? I think that the Secretary of State should come here and say whether he intends to allow that sort of expenditure to continue or whether, at this late stage, he will say "No".
There are two other less world shattering and perhaps less contentious matters that I want to put before the Lord President. First, I hope very much that before the House rises an opportunity will be found for the Government to give their views on the Maxwell Stamp Report. There has been an appalling amount of waste of time and procrastination in the Home Office under both Governments over the report. It is most important that some decision is reached so that the public know that when they get into a vehicle it is safe, even if it is not a London Hackney Carriage. They should be
290
able to know that the vehicle is not driven by one of the pirates who wander round the streets of London in motor cars.
I say to the Lord President that there should be a statement before the House rises giving the result of the Government's consultations—consultations which have extended over some three years under both Governments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to say that either a White Paper or a Bill will be introduced.
My second reason is more domestic. It concerns every Member who might find himself serving on a Select Committee. The Select Committee on Expenditure, and more particularly its Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, had a long-planned visit to Germany some three weeks ago. It was a follow-up of a visit paid some two and a half to three years earlier when, as a result of some of the observations which we made, it was found possible for the Ministry of Defence to make certain alterations, which the Government acknowledged made certain features of the Command more efficient and less costly. We went to follow that up.
After the date was fixed, along came the announcement that the committee was to be overseas in Germany on Budget day. From past experience, it is a fact that whenever Members go overseas and talk to the Services they are asked questions about what is happening in this country. That happens whether one goes on CPA visits to Jamaica or on Select Committee visits to Germany for evidence taking. I raised this matter, and I had a most courteous reception from the Lord President, but I do not think that he went far enough. I wanted the members of the Committee to be in a position to know enough about what had been going on in the House to be able to give intelligent answers, or at least as intelligent as if we had been in the House. I wanted that to be the position while we were in Germany for three more days after the Budget. All Members know that on Budget day a mass of documents are printed and are made available in the Vote Office the moment the Chancellor sits down. Those documents are printed at least 24 hours in advance.
I believe that it would be right for members of Select Committees who go

291
away on visits—they do not visit overseas countries for joy rides but on the business of the House, unlike other expeditions that occasionaly take place—to be in the position of having the correct documentation. I would have thought it possible in such cases for the documents received from the security printers to be bundled up and sent out either through the diplomatic bag or through the Commander-in-Chief, not to be opened until the Chancellor sits down. If it is said that there is a possible security risk, it means that the security printers are regarded as being more trustworthy than Members of Parliament or the Queen's Messengers, who carry diplomatic bags. I do not believe that that is a tenable argument.
On the assumption that on this occasion it was not possible for that to be done, I made inquiries whether the documents could be flown out on a Service aircraft. The answer was that there was no Service aircraft flying there at that time. I then asked whether they could go out on the civilian aircraft that takes newspapers to Germany to be made available first thing the following morning. I was told that that was possible but that there would be a charge of £8 for the package. However, the Accounting Officer of the House was not prepared to pay £8 as he had no authority to do so. I accepted that and I am not querying his right to say that. What I am querying is the principle that Members of Parliament who are abroad on Select Committee business should not be in a position to obtain such documents. In the case I have instanced, documents were not obtainable because the expenditure of £8 was not possible.
Before I can give my assent to this motion, I must ask the Lord President whether he will accept that Members who are abroad on the business of the House should have arrangements made for them to have such documentation as they may reasonably require. There are three ways in which that could be done. First, an item could be included in the House Vote which would make provision and which would give the backing that clearly the Accounting Officer, requires. Secondly, the Lord President might refer the matter for consideration. I accept that there may be more
292
than one way of considering the matter. The Lord President might agree to refer the matter either to the Procedure Committee or, more properly, to the Services Committee.
It is in that spirit, and not in taking up the suggestion that the Lord President is a tired man—if that is so he is probably too tired to take copious notes of the debate—that I would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that he will do one of those three things so that Members who wish to be conscientious and wish to be properly briefed when they are abroad on the business of the House may be put in that position. In that spirit I hope that I shall not find it necessary to vote against the motion.
5.39 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I rise briefly to support some of the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I would not go all the way with him in asking for a limited debate of the cease-fire alone. I believe that Northern Ireland and all its problems should be debated not in Committee but on the Floor of the House.
It is quite some time since we had a debate on Northern Ireland. Many unfortunate and tragic things have happened since we last had occasion to debate the subject. It would appear from the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Member for Down, South that he is suspicious about what is connected with the present fragile cease-fire that now exists between the British Government and the Provisional IRA. I support him in his suspicions, because they are held by the whole community in Northern Ireland. Not only the majority but also many members of the minority population would like to know exactly what type of arrangement has been made with the Provisional IRA.
This matter has been brought to a head because of the brutal and callous killing of a young Belfast policeman—one of my constituents. That killing has brought the condemnation of the whole community in Northern Ireland on the IRA. It was an atrocious killing. That young policeman could not have been involved in any of the charges which have been laid against the RUC over many years because he was only 20 years of age. I

293
have no hesitation, as an individual, as the representative of that constituency, and on behalf of my party and the minority population in condemning unequivocally those responsible for the taking of that young life.
The House should be aware that although there has been a cease-fire of some description between the Provisional IRA and the British Army, for many families in Northern Ireland there has been no cease-fire. Quite a few people have been killed since the cease-fire came into existence. The vast majority, if not all, were innocent victims. Many were found assassinated. Others were killed in bars or shot at their own front doors. If the cease-fire ever existed, it certainly did not have any effect on those who lost their lives and left behind bereaved families.
We are inclined to think only of those who have lost their lives. We tend to forget that when there is an explosion many people—since the cease-fire came into operation I am sure that the figure must run into hundreds—have lost legs, arms, and suffered other injuries.
There is a serious need for Northern Ireland and all its problems to be debated in isolation from the cease-fire. Over the past few weeks we have seen many failing industries in Northern Ireland. They have had to be helped to stay in existence by the British Government. One gets the feeling that many more industries in Northern Ireland are in a precarious position. Of course the cease-fire is important, but many people in Northern Ireland who are trying to lead ordinary lives are also concerned about their homes and jobs. I ask the Leader of the House to treat this matter with the seriousness that it deserves.
There has been reluctance on the part of British Ministers to appear to be intervening in the Convention elections or in the Convention which is now sitting at Stormont. But that is not the right attitude. Sooner or later Northern Ireland and all its problems will have to be debated. If this House is given the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland's social, unemployment and housing problems, those in the Convention will realise the seriousness of the position. Indeed, it may compel them to take a
294
more reasonable attitude, recognising all the divisions which exist.
If the British Government do not make clear their attitude to Northern Ireland and its problems, politicians—I am not limiting this to one section of the community may take hard line, rigid attitudes which will spell the failure of the Convention. In such circumstances we would have to debate Northern Ireland and the failure of the Convention on the Floor of the House. Therefore, it would be wiser for the British Government to allow a debate to take place so that we may be aware of all the circumstances. Certainly the cease-fire is important, but all the other problems should be discussed as well.
Sentiments have been expressed on a number of occasions by Unionist Members about the opportunity of discussing the Gardiner Report. We have been told that that report, which is of such importance to Northern Ireland, has been shelved. The whole community in Northern Ireland wants to know the British Government's attitude to detention and all the other issues contained in the Gardiner Report.
I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South. But we should not discuss the cease-fire in isolation or Northern Ireland and its problems in Committee. The whole problem of Northern Ireland should be discussed on the Floor of the House as urgently as possible.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I wish to speak in opposition to this motion because there is a matter which I think the House should consider before going away for a two-week recess at Whitsun. It is in the best traditions of the House to consider urgently any matters which reveal injustice and inequity. I have in mind the working of the regulations for compensating the families of Service men killed in Northern Ireland and the working of the regulations for compensating Service men wounded in Northern Ireland and invalided from the Services.
This whole matter is governed by the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Northern Ireland) (Compensation) Act 1968. Starting with the soldiers killed in service, it seems that compensation for the next of kin in some cases is paid and in others

295
it is not. For example, the figures which I have taken from The Sunday Times of 9th February show that 110 next of kin have been compensated and 115 have not.
The question at issue is the amount of compensation paid to the next of kin of Service men compared with that paid to the next of kin of civilians. I am well aware that the governing principle behind the legislation is taken to be the loss of future earnings. Obviously the family of a man in business in Northern Ireland who has been rather successful could easily be shown to have suffered a serious loss by the number of years that he would have earned sizeable sums of money. However, the next of kin of a 20-year-old single soldier with no dependants would get a very small sum indeed.
I do not wish to detain the House unduly with a large number of cases but there is one case which shows the degree of inequity. It is the case of the bookmaker and the major. It sounds as though it has just been decided by the High Court, but it has not. They are two separate cases.
The bookmaker was Mr. Larry McMahon who left an estate worth £206,000 and his next of kin received a criminal injuries award of £100,000. It is easy to see how that sum was computed, and I am not arguing about that.
Major Richard Jarman of the Royal Engineers was blown up, like Mr. McMahon, by a booby trap. At 41, the major was three years younger than the bookmaker, and he also left a widow and four children. The Army was able to show that Major Jarman had a bright future. In fact, it was confidently predicted that he would have become a colonel by the time he reached 44 and probably a brigadier a year or so later. The report in The Sanday Times states:
"Armed with this information, the Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Board—which is now paying personal injury awards totalling £6 million annually—calculated the Jarman family's loss. The board's recommended award was a mere £22,876."
That was increased somewhat later, but, by any standards, it was well short of the sum given to the bookmaker's family.
I quote again from this article:
"When Trooper John Gibbons, aged 22 and attached to the Parachute Regiment, was killed by a border landmine on May 5 last year, he
296
left a widow aged 20 and a son aged two. Mrs. Gibbons was awarded just £1,000 by Armagh County Court."
Two questions arise when we consider the matter of Service men who have been injured and invalided out of the Service. There is the question of the anomalies between what one person received and what another person received, and there is also the question of the considerable time lapse between the injury and the award of the sum.
I first became aware of this problem, as of many other matters—and I am sure other hon. Members have experienced this—from constituency correspondence—from a letter from a constituent who said that he wished to appeal against an award of about £2,000 given to him in Belfast. He had been told that he could appeal and instruct a solicitor in Belfast but that he would have to go to Belfast at his own expense. He was a lorry driver by trade. No doubt, he would have to stay several nights in Belfast while the case was heard. This was some 18 months or two years after the injury had occurred.
I should like to cite some examples of injuries that have occurred. The same article in The Sunday Times states:
"Typical judgments affecting less seriously injured servicemen include £12,500 to an Army lieutenant for the loss of a leg and £9,000 to a 23-year-old Royal Marine for a bullet in the hip which has crippled him for life and led to his discharge. These cases may fairly be set against those of three Ulster civilians compensated in the Northern Ireland High Court for the treatment they received after being arrested by security forces when internment was introduced in 1971. The three received agreed damages of £16,000, £12,500 and £11,250 respectively. Their only physical injury was chafing from handcuffs."
Having cited these examples I do not intend to detain the House much longer. I assure hon. Members that these examples are not special pleadings. There are many more cases apart from the ones I have selected. I should like the House to press the Lord President for an early consideration of this matter, because there is great inequity and injustice here.
With all respect to the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, we are only too happy to see Service men doing our dirty job in Northern Ireland on our behalf. Let us be quite clear about this. They have to do that. However, as soon as they happen to be struck down by snipers

297
bullets we give the impression as a country that we turn our backs on them and tell them that they have to undergo the laid down procedure.
Another point to be noted is that the injury has to stabilise. In other words, according to the jargon of the Department of Health and Social Security, we have to assess how badly injured a person is. A chap may actually slightly recover. Goodness me, the nation might have paid £1,000 to someone who lost a leg and that person may be more cheerful than might have appeared at the time. We owe it to Service men in Northern Ireland to put forward some kind of scale so that we can say quite clearly "If anything happens to you or your dependants a scale is laid down and will be activated very quickly; there will be no time lag and any court proceedings you have to go through will be at Government expense".
Therefore, I hope that the Lord President will consider that this matter should be examined very soon.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: I should like to suggest to the House that we should not adjourn until the Government have made a clear statement about how they see the evolution of the steel industry over the next two years in the perhaps, unlikely context of Britain's continuing membership of the Common Market.
I certainly need not impress upon the House the importance of the steel industry, which is one of the basic industries of this country, and its importance to the future livelihoods of many thousands of men and their wives and families. Within the last few days there have been some rather serious suggestions in the Press that many thousands of steelworkers—no doubt some of them from my constituency in Sheffield; certainly many people in Sheffield would be likely to be affected—might lose their jobs if some of the proposals which have been aired lately are put into effect.
Related to this matter is the power of the Government and of this House to affect and determine the development of the steel industry in Britain in the light of the commitments that we have undertaken under the Treaties of Rome and Paris, by which, depending upon the outcome
298
of the referendum on 5th June, we have to abide. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may possibly reply that the Government have set out their views on the White Paper on Membership of the European Community, Cmnd. 5999. I put to the House and to him that this document is vague, ambiguous and unsatisfactory. On pap, 7 it states
"Steel is more difficult, partly for inherent reasons, partly because of action taken by the previous Government when they repealed Section 15 of the Iron and Steel Act."
The White Paper goes on to say that repeal of that section of the Iron and Steel Act, which destroys the control of the Government and of this House over investment in the private sector of the steel industry, is unacceptable. It says:
"it is unacceptable that the private sector should be free to expand where it wants and by as much as it wants thus adding to the inflationary pressure on resources, quite apart from the location and regional problems, for example, in areas where steel men have been made redundant by technological change".
However, the only remedy which this document proposes—and this is something on which the Government should say more before my constituents are expected to cast their votes on the 5th June—is that it might be necessary to ask for treaty revision if there is no other way of solving this problem. With great respect, I do not think that that is a satisfactory position in which to put 220,000 workers in this great and important industry or that it is satisfactory to say that the essential part of the control of invest-men, development and future of this industry may depend on the willingness, presumably of other countries of the Community, to agree to some revision of the Treaties of Rome and Paris.
In pressing for a statement on this matter I am entitled, before the House goes into recess and before we agree to this Adjournment motion, to remind the House of some of the powers which we have abandoned under the Treaties of Rome and Paris in respect of the steel industry.
We have renounced power to control investment in the private sector of that industry. The private sector is, of course, immensely important in Sheffield. We have also renounced power to give the British Steel Corporation directives on prices and directives on any complaint

299
from the private sector. In effect, the Government and the House no longer control the effective development of this important industry.
By contrast, the strength of the European Commission is immense. It is based on exclusive jurisdiction in a wide sphere of pricing and commercial policy, on its power to demand prior approval of certain investment projects and, of course, on the basic philosophy of competition enshrined in the appropriate treaties. The Commisison has control over specialisation agreements, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions. It has powers to fix prices and conditions of sale. It has certain powers in respect of loans from Community funds by which it can be selective and can steer development on the lines which the Commission, rather than the Government of the day or this House, considers desirable within the European Community.
In particular, there is a power under Article 58 of the Treaty of Paris for the Commission to impose a system of production quotas if there appears to be a crisis—the technical term is "manifest crisis"—in the production of steel within the Community. It is true that under this article, when taking a final decision on the question of production quotas, a recommendation by the Commission could be overruled or set aside, or perhaps modified, by the Council of Ministers. However, in these circumstances, since the application of Article 58 is now being discussed, and has in fact been invoked by one of the French Ministers, before any recess and before constituents in Sheffield at any rate, and probably in other parts of the country, cast their vote whether we should continue within the European Community, it is fair that the Government should make some pronouncement on the application of Article 58 of the Treaty of Paris. The Government should state whether we would accede to recommendations by the Commission if the production quotas involved the cessation of production or savage limitations on production in important steel producing plants in Britain, such as that in Scunthorpe or those elsewhere.
The matter has been discussed in the bulletin of the Community, in the document called Agence Europe. This points
300
out that there is not merely an economic issue here but a very important political issue—on which my constituents and the House are entitled to have the Government's views. Referring to the request of M. Jacques Ferry for the application of Article 58, this bulletin says:
"It is in fact thought in relevant Commission circles that on the one hand the short-term economic situation on the steel market has not yet become serious enough to warrant recourse to the measures laid down in the ECSC Article 58. These measures contradict the liberal policy which the Community is trying to promote at a time where the tariff negotiations are starting in the context of GATT. A limitation on imports … would in fact threaten to affect the Community's credibility in the field of trade policy and international trade which the Nine say they want to develop.
As for the setting of production quotas, provided for in Article 58, the Commission's reticence may originate in the fact that there could be negative reactions in the United Kingdom where the opponents of Community membership could exploit the use of such power by the Commission which would be regarded as excessive and implying an abandoning of sovereignty during the campaign for the referendum on the maintenance of Great Britain within the Community."
That is very fair comment.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In relation to the case the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, is he aware of the large sums of money that Europe is advancing for the British steel industry?
Mr. Hooley: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me, he would have heard me specifically refer to that fact. I also pointed out that by making these sums available the European institutions have certain powers to direct investment where they think fit, which may not be in directions which this House or my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet would think fit. The power to make loans gives certain powers to the lenders which may or may not be acceptable to this House and which, in the present context, are certainly not acceptable to me.
These articles and the proposals which are being floated are by no means academic considerations of treaty powers. In Sheffield we have already had a very unfortunate situation in recent months, when the European institutions intervened to prevent the British Steel Corporation from acquiring an important stake in the special steels sector of the Sheffield industry. This intervention aroused widespread resentment among the workers

301
involved in the firm concerned and consideration that Britain should think very carefully indeed before continuing within a treaty framework which so seriously limited the powers of the Government and of this House.
Finally, there is abroad a very serious suspicion that the very drastic and rather high-handed proposals of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation for savage redundancies within the steel industry over a very short period and during a period of economic recession are not unconnected with our possible continuing membership of the European Community. It is believed that if the people of Britain do decide on 5th June that we should continue as a member of the Community, the British Steel Corporation will have powers to pursue its own policy on redundancy, investment and development, which this House and the Government will not be able to check.
In those circumstances I believe I am entitled to ask that before the House passes the motion for the recess, there should be a statement of Government policy on these matters.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: In opposing the motion, I intend to be very brief, but in being brief I would ask the Lord President not to underestimate the seriousness of the point I raise.
We all have many reasons for opposing the Adjournment motion. Mine is based on what I feel is the need to defend the reputation of the security forces in Northern Ireland, in particular the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Military Police. I was horrified when I learned yesterday that three members of the RUC and a member of the Royal Military Police are having charges preferred against them arising out of their conduct in the course of duty. However, what caused me to be horrified was not the fact that charges were being preferred. It is right that charges should be preferred if there is a prima facie case to answer. The reason why I was horrified was the manner in which it was being done. We remember particularly the experience of a year ago when a member of the RUC was charged under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. There was fierce resentment in the
302
RUC that his case was being treated in the same way as that of a terrorist under laws and procedures designed to deal with terrorists. Indeed the RUC felt so strongly about it at the time that they withdrew their services from some aspects of their duty towards the courts.
This matter was clearly of concern to the Government at that time. It was duly considered by the Gardiner Committee. The Gardiner Committee has commented on it in paragraph 62 of its report. It is another of the incidents that makes one regret that we have not dealt with this very important report at a much earlier date. However, the Gardiner Committee felt that it should recommend to the Attorney-General that he exercise his discretion in certifying offences under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act when he considered it to be in the best interests of justice. I urge the Lord President to convey urgently to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the need to look at these four cases. I have heard from the Police Federation that their feelings are just as strong as they were a year ago, and no doubt the feelings in respect of the Royal Military Police are of a similar kind.
No one here is trying to evade the issue or to indulge in a cover up. What we are saying is that if members of the security forces have something to answer for, then their case should be heard in the ordinary way in the ordinary courts of the land, and they should be entitled to trial by jury. It may be a very small point, but it is one of very considerable importance to all of us. If we were asking our police and security forces to do what has already been referred to as a dirty job, it is up to all of us to see that they are fairly treated and that the full standards of British justice are applied to them.
I should like to refer briefly to another aspect of the Gardiner Committee's Report, and that is the special category prisoners. The Gardiner Committee had no difficulty in finding that the creation of such a category of prisoners was a serious mistake. Indeed, the Committee went so far as to say that it doubted the legality of the creation of such a status. That report was in our hands in January of this year, and to the best of my knowledge no consideration has been given to

303
remedying the serious mistakes, or to correcting what may be an illegality. Indeed, we seem to be just drifting, because the Price sisters, who were convicted of serious crimes under this jurisdiction, have now been transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland and have been accorded special category status. I find this quite extraordinary in the light of what the Gardiner Committee said.
I am concerned, too, from another aspect, because once the contents of the report became public quite naturally there was a great deal of discussion among prisoners about its import and among the families of prisoners. There have been suggestions from prison authorities and from Government sources that consideration has been given to the introduction of increased remission on a parole system similar to that prevailing in Great Britain. That naturally has built up hopes and anxieties in certain quarters, and everything is still in the air. It is a matter on which I feel we have a right to press for urgent action. We have a right to oppose the Adjournment motion. I hope that the Lord President will see that the necessary steps are taken without delay.
6.04 p.m.
Mr. Stan Thorne: I welcome what hon. Members from Northern Ireland have said on this question of the debate on this Motion because it seems to me that there are outstanding matters in Northern Ireland which will bear some sort of fruit over the next two or three months and which the House ought to be debating. I am a little concerned, however, that hon. Members, on the benches opposite at any rate, are again emphasising the security aspect in Northern Ireland rather than addressing themselves to the problem of unemployment, the problem of the economy in Northern Ireland and various other factors which the House ought to be debating in an overall consideration of the state of the British economy.
I will not deal with Northern Ireland in any depth. I will not deal with the question of world poverty, which is something this House never gets to grips with in an attempt to see how we can contribute to overcoming it. We touch on it in a peripheral way from time to time,
304
but we never get down to an appraisal of the issues involved. It would in itself be good grounds for delaying the Adjournment of the House if we were to have such a debate.
We could refer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) did earlier, to the lack of quality that appears to exist in some of the information we get from Government circles about the meaning and value of membership of the European Economic Community. It seems to me that some of the documents which do not see light of day have considerable significance in terms of allowing the people the maximum opportunity to decide "Yes" or "No" in the forthcoming referendum.
It is, one might suggest, a matter of lesser importance which I want to raise and which I think the House ought to debate before we go into recess, and it is not unconnected with the referendum on the Common Market. The Central Office of Information is a Government Department responsible for advertising and for giving notices to the Press from time to time about Government statements or Government policy. For example, if there is an increase in family allowances or a change in taxation, the Central Office of Information attempts to convey that information to as wide a range of people as possible.
In regard to the referendum, there is a postal vote available and it seems to me, and obviously to the COI, necessary to make known to the people the way in which they can apply for such a vote. All the national newspapers except one were used by the Central Office of Information for this purpose. The exception was the Morning Star
Sir Frederic Bennett: Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) says, "Surprise"; and it seems to me that that expresses in a word an attitude which I find completely unacceptable. What, in effect, is happening is that we are preventing the readership of the Morning Star from gaining access to information about postal voting in the referendum which we are prepared to provide for the readers of the Daily Express, The Times, and so on. In my view that is a form of discrimination

305
which is totally unacceptable in an institution which has always prided itself on its democratic status. If we are prepared today to accept this sort of discrimination, this sort of restriction on readers of the Morning Star, about whom tomorrow shall we be prepared to accept restrictions?
Mr. Russell Kerr: It will be the Labour Weekly.
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Russell Kerr) says it will be the Labour Weekly. Quite possibly. It seems to me that our attitude towards a newspaper depends upon the sort of material it presents to the public. If it disseminates material which is critical of the establishment or of the values that seem to buttress our society, then it is regarded as open to question. I am trying to keep to the point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise the hon. Member is trying, but he is not succeeding.
Mr. Thorne: I will try harder, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The essence of my objection to the motion is that we should not adjourn on 23rd May but should stay in session in order to consider items of the utmost importance. I claim that discrimination against a national newspaper at a time when we are trying to provide the maximum information to the public on such a crucial issue is something we cannot tolerate.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): As Minister responsible for the information service, may I answer that point? This is a subject of interest to me as an ex-journalist. The difficulty with the Morning Star is not to do with its political view. The problem is that it will not give us its circulation figures upon which to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of its advertising. I can assure my hon. Friend that no newspaper, Left, Right or centre, receives any Government advertising unless it provides circulation figures.
Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend prepared to make a further statement if I produce evidence to the effect that at
306
least three other newspapers with circulations smaller than that of the Morning Star have been used by the Central Office of Information to disseminate Government material?
Mr. Price: Did those newspapers give the Government their circulation figures? That is the crux of the matter.
Mr. Thorne: I rather suspect that they did. My hon. Friend seems to be saying that he knew that the circulation of those papers was smaller than that of the Morning Star yet nevertheless they were given advertisements. I do not know what the readership of the Morning Star is. The circulation is probably about 30,000, a small number. The number of people who read it might conceivably be 10 times that figure. That does not seem to be terribly important in relation to this issue, which concerns the fact that some people are being deprived of information which others will receive. It is on that basis that I urge that we should not go into recess until there has been opportunity to discuss the matter.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Michael Latham: Many of my constituents work in the city of Leicester and would be loth to see the House go into recess before a full statement is made by the right hon. Gentleman, first about the state of the knitwear industry and secondly about the state of the shoe trade, both of which are in a poor state. Many hon. Members have pressed hard for effective Government action. In answer to a Question put by me some weeks ago, the Prime Minister conceded that unfair trading was taking place and said that he intended to take action. No action has been taken so far.
It was said that working parties were to be set up. They have not been set up as far as I know. Letters have been going to and fro between various people in the knitwear industry, the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Trade. No significant action has been taken. Meanwhile substantial numbers of my constituents working in the knitwear and shoe factories in Leicester and the surrounding areas are on short time or are out of a job. I hope that the Lord President will impress upon his colleagues the need for an early statement.

307
I have written to the Government about the extremely unsatisfactory state which has arisen concerning the rating of caravans in East Lincolnshire. Many of my constituents who have caravans go there on holiday. They have now, for the first time, been served with notices of rating assessment as a result of a quirk in the law which has arisen from a recent decision. I have been in correspondence on their behalf, because many of them have written to me, with the East Lindsey District Council in whose area most of them live. The East Lindsey District Council has made it quite clear to me in a letter that it does not wish to charge those rates and has no administrative machinery so to do because not all the people who own the caravans live in East Lindsey. Many of them live in Leicestershire.
This situation requires emergency legislation. I have written to the Government about it. I hope that the Lord President will be able to say that before we go into recess emergency legislation will be introduced to deal with the problem.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) said that while he was on a mission in Germany he was not able to obtain certain documents relating to the Budget. I do not think that that could be regarded as an unreasonable deprivation. An hon. Member cannot be in two places at once. Many of the documents circulating at the time of the Budget debate are not taken up by hon. Members on the spot. If an hon. Member is anxious to obtain such documents at the earliest possible moment, he ought to be here to collect them.
The Lord President ought to pay attention to what could be a substantial economy. I refer to the circulation of parliamentary documents and papers to hon. Members. We get a lot of parliamentary papers in which we are not interested and which we do not want. It would be useful if many of those documents now automatically distributed were included on the pink slip so that hon. Members could obtain them on request. Large numbers of expensively-produced Bills are sent to hon. Members. Many
308
immediately go into the waste paper basket.
My next point relates to the considerable increase in postal charges. I represent a constituency which contains a large number of poor people who cannot afford the 7p which is required for a first-class letter. I suggest for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the possibility of a free postal service for the use of constituents who wish to write to their Member of Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman seek this reform before the proposed recess? Will he relate his remarks to the motion?
Mr. Lipton: I should like the Lord President to make a statement on the subject before the recess, which is why I am raising the subject now. Such a move would help to establish a close relationship between hon. Members and their constituents. This is particularly important for electors who cannot afford the 7p needed for a first-class letter.
It might be argued that this method could be open to abuse by people wanting to circularize hon. Members, public relations officers and so on. There is an easy way to overcome that. A constituent writing to his Member should send his letter in a hand-written envelope on which there could be set out the constituents name and address. That would prevent abuse.
I come now to the subject of New Palace Yard on which I hope that my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity of making a statement on Monday because I have a Question tabled for answer by him then. The latest information I have been able to obtain about New Palace Yard was that 4,000 tons of topsoil had been delivered at a cost of £10,000 for the purpose of covering the surface. I should like to know when we shall be finished with these operations and when we shall be free of these people who have been hovering around for a long time at vast expense. If my right hon. Friend cannot give me the information now, I hope that he can do so on Monday.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: We have just listened to a characteristically interesting speech from the hon. Member for

309
Lambent, Central (Mr. Lipton). I wonder whether the suggestion that our constituents should have free postage to us is really greatly to be commended. I do not suppose for a moment that our constituents would welcome the consequences of such a proposal, which would undoubtedly be responsible for added secretarial services here.
I was more in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he commented on the extraordinary pantomime which has been going on in New Palace Yard for a very long time. It has been long drawn out, in the same way as many of our national affairs. It has been ill directed, going first one way and then another. A lot of earth was recently moved in order to make space for a fountain which had apparently been forgotten. The hon. Member is absolutely right to call attention to a long-drawn-out, inefficiently-conducted farce, which I hope will soon be over, because it is a very bad advertisement for the way this nation runs its business.
May I refer briefly to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). I do not think that anything one could say in a short debate like this would be adequate or sufficient comment on the long-drawn-out agony of Northern Ireland. I hope very much that the Government will pay attention to the constant need to reassure opinion and try to keep it informed, so as to do something to hold back the tides of rumour and suspicion which I am sure have an undue influence upon affairs there. I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, especially when he called for some defence of those whose care is the preservation of law and order.
It has been a somewhat varied debate. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made a plea for an amendment of the law on rape. I do not believe that it would be within the capacity of the Government to secure this before the recess.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is not now in his place, made a speech which may have achieved a high point of interest at one
310
stage. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that the hon. Member's speech on the whole was a fairly powerful argument for a prolonged and extended recess.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), in my absence, declared his opposition to the European Economic Community and expressed his concern that the interests of his steelworks constituents should be protected. I am certainly not the first person on either side of this House to remind people quite modestly that many of those in the public sector of industry are doing their level best to price themselves out of jobs and, in the course of it, doing great harm to our national interest.
I come now to the real "villain" in this debate, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The Lord President rebuked him that he was really making just the kind of speech that did great damage to the pound. I thought that the Lord President was allowing his capacity for rage to get the better of him. We are in a democratic assembly here, and it was really not entirely surprising that during the course of the debate, when we are considering giving ourselves a fortnight's recess from our labors here, someone might mention the fact in passing that the economy is not as strong and robust as we would like it to be.
The suggestion from the Lord President that that very modest speech from the Liberal benches was somehow the kind of thing that caused our economic weakness and damage to the pound was surprising. I am bound to say that I do not believe that the hon. and learned Member said anything in the course of his speech that was not well known to any casual observer of our scene, and I should be inclined to acquit him—I hope he will accept this acquittal—of having wantonly caused damage to our national interests this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said in an eloquent speech—he was probably right—that there should be no adjournment before the Government had produced some sort of package of economic measures. At any rate, we shall await with interest what the Government have to say before and during the economic debate, which is now to take place on Thursday of next week.

311
My hon. Friend put the blame fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the present Government. This was despite having had the benefit, as I am sure he did, of listening to the Prime Minister's broadcast on Sunday. My hon. Friend very rightly pointed out—I hope that the Leader of the House will perhaps get this remedied next week—that we would like the Government to deal with the question of the inadequacy of the Estimates and the serious gaps in them. These Estimates have notably failed to provide for very substantial and well-known items of Government expenditure. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out that this kind of failure does much more damage to sterling and to the reputation of this country for honoring its obligations than any speeches made by backbench Members of Parliament.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting what would be a complete break with practice—that the main Estimates should include every item of expenditure expected to arise during the year?
Mr. Peyton: No, I am not. But if the system of annual Estimates is to mean anything, it must attempt to overcome this inadequacy. The National Enterprise Board is down for £50 million. There must be some explanation of the total amount of Government expenditure and how the money is to be raised. That is all I am saying, and I hope the Government will take note of the point eloquently and clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who concluded his speech with the most gentle and restrained analysis of the individual responsibilities of particular Ministers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), whose presence we now all so greatly miss, rose to his feet and, with the indignation of some not particularly attractive lady who has never had any proposals at all, said that he would not have a coalition. That was something that we on this side of the House will have to endure with courage. The hon. Gentleman's speech was chiefly notable for a depressing acceptance of the enduring nature of the reasons for our being in the troubles we are in today. He had nothing to suggest as to how
312
attitudes might be changed to give this country any hope of recovering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke with charity and understanding, of the need for Ministers to have a rest. He showed that remarkable perception for which he is known in diagnosing a certain tiredness in the Prime Minister, having obviously watched that television hour on Sunday. I make no comment on that, because I like to be known for my restraint.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that it is actions which are called for and not simply another debate. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend is looking forward to hearing what the Government have to say next week. He echoed the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—"The party's over". It is remarkable that words like that can be uttered by a senior Minister and cause hardly a ripple throughout the party of which he is one of the leaders.
I find it surprising that, during the course of this discussion about whether we should adjourn for a fortnight over Whitsun, so few Government supporters thought it necessary to mention the state of muddle, confusion, doubt and fear into which their Government have led the nation's affairs.
I return to the Leader of the House. He has no right whatever to rebuke anyone in this House for calling attention, in the restrained fashion that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery did, to the troubles of this country. Those troubles are not caused by any frankness or candor of speech in this House. They are caused by our constantly running away from the realities of economic life. The Leader of the House knows that. If he does not know it, he should do. The trouble is that the Government of which he is a leading representative will never face this fact.
Perhaps I might permit myself one remark about the Prime Minister's broadcast, and I put myself in order by saying that I hope we shall not have another before we go into recess. That broadcast made me think of someone driving along in a car and being asked what was round the next corner. All that the Prime Minister could do was look in

313
the rear mirror and say "We have just passed three motor cars and two container lorries". The possibility of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government looking ahead was shown then to be negligible. I wish that we had some reasonable ground for hoping that the fortnight's recess which we are obviously about to have would do something to bring the Government to their senses.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Short.
Mr. John Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office was right a little earlier to intervene from the Treasury Bench for three minutes on the matter of the Morning Star. As the curator or protector of back-benchers' rights, would the Leader of the House care to give those hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate one minute each in which to say what they have been waiting to say?
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Edward Short: There are a great many points to be replied to, and I shall do so as briefly as I can.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who is not with us now, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) all referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. They spoke about the Provisional IRA ceasefire and the problem caused by the despicable and cold-blooded murder of a police officer in Londonderry.
The Government's policy on this is quite clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been at pains to report to the House what has been happening. The House will recall his statements on 14th January, 5th February, 11th February and 12th March. In the course of one of them, my right hon. Friend said that a genuine and sustained cessation of violence would create a new situation and new opportunities for progress in Northern Ireland. He has also made it clear, following Saturday's tragic events, that the men of violence must take the consequences if they wish to go back to a campaign of violence.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East raised four cases. I shall pass on
314
what he said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for Down, South, asked about a debate. I say at once that we have had much less time to debate Northern Ireland than I should have wished. But 10 per cent. of our time this Session so far has been devoted to Europe. The last general debate on Northern Ireland was on 5th December.
I invited the House to set up a Northern Ireland Committee, which it did. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the Government do not consider the ceasefire appropriate for discussion in the Northern Ireland Committee. However, my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 22nd April and made a number of constructive suggestions of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. South (Mr. Thorne). He suggested that the Northern Ireland Committee might discuss economic and industrial problems, housing, future development policy, education or agriculture. So far, however, my right hon. Friend has received no reply to that letter. I hope that very soon it will be possible for right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to agree on one or more subjects to be debated in the Northern Ireland Committee.
Mr. Powell: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government consider the most pressing of all the problems of Northern Ireland and one on which clarity is required to be unsuitable for debate in that Committee?
Mr. Short: I said that we did not believe that this was a suitable subject to be debated in the Northern Ireland Committee.
Mr. Powell: Why?
Mr. Short: We felt that that was a more suitable forum for the kind of constructive subject that I mentioned.
Mr. Powell: Why?
Mr. Short: I hope that it will be possible very soon to agree on subjects, as the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees do. They are functioning.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the Leader of the House kept the official Opposition informed of these exchanges and of the progress, or lack of it, in setting up the Committee?
Mr. Short: I am not sure about that. But the procedure adopted is the same as that which has been adopted for many years for the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. A subject is agreed among the Members themselves, and the Government, with the Minister concerned, accept the subject.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Leader of the House confirm that I wrote to him on 13th February suggesting this very subject, which we felt needed close examination in the Northern Ireland Committee? We have never received any explanation of why it was considered unsuitable. I should very much like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation this evening.
Mr. Short: This is a matter between the Members themselves and the Secretary of State, if we follow the precedents of Wales and Scotland. It is for Northern Ireland Members to talk to the Secretary of State and to agree on a subject. I hope that they will do that and sort it out among themselves.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "Members", does he mean Northern Ireland Members? Is the Committee to be confined to Northern Ireland Members? Is that his present thinking?
Mr. Short: The House itself has decided the constitution of the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the motion which the House agreed, he will see how the Committee is composed.
I repeat what I said just now. I regret very much that we have not been able to devote more time to debating Northern Ireland, and I agree with all that the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the importance of debate. It was for this very reason that I set up the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned the case of rape, the Director of Public Prosecutions v Morgan and Others. The
316
Home Secretary is aware of the concern which has been expressed about this judgment and he recently explained to the House that he is studying it closely. As regards the law on rape generally, my right hon. Friend has it in mind as part of the programme of modernization and codification of the criminal law to refer the law on sexual offences to the Criminal Law Revision Committee to consider as soon as its other commitments permit. I hope, therefore, that not only the law on rape generally but this judgment, which concerns many people, will be considered.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) raised the general question of the economy. In view of what the right hon. Member for Evil (Mr. Peyton) said, I would say at once that of course I do not want to prevent responsible discussion. On a subject and at a time of such acute sensitivity, however, I feel that if the hon. and learned Member looks at his words tomorrow he will see that he was not being entirely responsible.
Mr. Peyton rose—
Mr. Short: I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peyton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give way on this important point. I hope he will say to what words he objected. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
Mr. Short: I am not going to be cross-examined by the right hon. Gentleman. No one interrupted him. He was heard in silence.
Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that I used some words which were irresponsible. I am surely entitled to know what they were. I do not think that that remark is justified. It is the right hon. Gentleman who is behaving irresponsibly.
Mr. Short: If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads his words tomorrow and regards his words as responsible, I am afraid that neither I nor many other hon. Members will agree with him.
The situation in the economy is serious—I said this last week at Question Time and the Chancellor spelled it out

317
in the Budget debate—but it is not by any means hopeless. There are many very hopeful signs. [Laughter.] The Conservative Party is living up to its usual behaviour in this House. It is the worst behaved Opposition that we have had in my 25 years here. Every other speaker in this debate has been heard in silence. When I am called upon to reply, perhaps I can at least have a fair hearing.
As I was saying, there are many hopeful signs. The balance of payments problem is improving rapidly. Company finance, because of what the Chancellor did in his two recent Budgets, has greatly improved, as has the money supply problem. With money supply, the picture remains one of controlled growth, well below the growth of gross domestic product in nominal terms. Over the three months to March, the wide definition—M3—rose by no more than 2¼ per cent. The other definition, M1, rose a little faster, a little more in line with transactions, but certainly not at a pace which would be regarded as adding fuel to the inflationary problem. Therefore, compared with the record of the last Government, there is a success story on the money supply. There are hopeful signs.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), said that there was no easy way out, and of course I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said that it was a matter for the good sense of the British people. I entirely agree. The only way in which we can get out of our problem is by our own efforts.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury also said that a statutory incomes policy was no answer to our problems. I agree with him. The last Labour Government tried it, as did the Government of which he was a member at one time. In both cases the incomes policy came apart. For the last Government it ended in chaos with the three-day working week and the rest.
The hon. Member advocated massive cuts in public expenditure. He should tell us sometime—perhaps in the debate next week—what cuts he would make.
Mr. Ridley: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman now.
Mr. Short: Next week, if the hon. Gentleman gets an opportunity—and I
318
do not mean candle ends, either. They must be the sort of cuts which would make an impact on the kind of borrowing requirement that we inherited from his Government. He must tell us, first, the kind of massive public expenditure cuts that he would make and then what the result would be on employment. The Conservative Party cannot go on advocating mass public expenditure cuts without spelling out the consequences for employment.
Mr. Ridley: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman immediately what public expenditure I would cut—food subsidies, fuel subsidies, housing subsidies, the whole of the "Wedgwood Bennery" programme and the nationalisation on the scale predicted by the present Government. That would go half way towards meeting the needs.
Mr. Short: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would answer my second question. What would that mean for the cost of living and employment? He must give us the second instalment next week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) talked about the unfinished business in this Parliament. All the unfinished business will be completed by the end of this Session.
My hon. Friend also referred to debates on the EEC. As I said earlier, so far this Session we have spent 10 per cent. of our parliamentary time on Europe. That is a pretty fair quota. There is a backlog at the moment, but that backlog will be cleared up, certainly after the referendum. As for the order which was dropped because it lacked one vote, I am afraid that the House has debated that matter and I cannot find any more time for it.
The debate on the EEC budget was delayed because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was unable to give evidence to the Select Committee at the time, being deeply involved in the Finance Bill. He has recently been able to give his evidence, which the Select Committee has published in a special report. In the light of that evidence it is the Government's intention to debate the EEC budget as soon as possible. I hope that that will be shortly after the recess.
Mr. Spearing: I also mentioned the European Monetary Co-operation Fund,

319
having given notice of my intention to do so.
Mr. Short: I am afraid that I did not get notice of that, but perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) raised the question of steel closure and redundancies. The BSC is facing serious problems as a result of the sharp downturn in demand for steel. When its representatives met the TUC Steel Committee on 5th May, they put forward proposals that would involve the loss of between 16,500 and 20,000 jobs this year. Those proposals were rejected by the TUC Steel Committee. I understand that the executives of the constituent unions are now discussing the situation in preparation for a further meeting between the corporation and the steel committee on 19th May.
The Government are deeply concerned about the situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry wrote to the Chairman of the BSC on 6th May. In reply he received three assurances—first, that no action taken to meet the recession will pre-empt the outcome of the Government's closure review; second, that any plants closed for lack of demand will be kept in a state enabling them to be reopened when demand improves, unless their permanent closure has been decided upon as part of the closure review; and third, that the BSC will take account of the union's views and any alternatives which they may suggest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) also mentioned the Government's review. The relationship between the Government and the British Steel Corporation cannot be considered simply in terms of legal powers. The corporation has given its full co-operation to Lord Beswick's review of the industry, which involved consideration of the corporation's development programme and its social consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme also mentioned the statement which was announced to be made today. I regret that, at very short notice, the House was disappointed at not hearing that statement on industrial demo
320
cracy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade arrived back too late from an engagement in Liverpool to make some necessary amendments, but he hopes to make the statement before the recess. I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
The hon. Member for Woking made one of the most attractive speeches in the whole debate. He believed that a longer recess was a good idea, and I very much agree. Many right hon. and hon. Members will be deeply involved in the referendum. I certainly hope that they will be, and that they will play a full part on one side or the other and try to get a large turn-out and create much interest.
The House has still a great deal of business to deal with before the end of the Session. Therefore, two weeks is the most we can manage to have for the recess, but I greatly regret having to say that.
The hon. Member for Woking spoke about the enormous inflationary pressures inherent in the Government's policies.
Mr. Onslow: Hear, hear.
Mr. Short: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten what the Labour Government inherited from the Government of which he was a member? This Government inherited only 14 months ago an enormous deficit on our balance of trade. Has he forgotten the enormous borrowing requirement? Has he forgotten the way in which his Government were spending money like water?
Mr. Onslow rose—
Mr. Peyton rose—
Mr. Short: I cannot talk against two hon. Members.
Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman's memory so deficient that he has forgotten—if he cares to put it in these terms—the Ossa he piled upon Pelion, the housing subsidies, food subsidies, nationalisation and all the folly and foolishness emanating week by week from the programmes for which he is responsible?
Mr. Short: If it is folly and foolishness to protect people who are worse off from

321
the policies which we inherited from the Tories, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman talked about inflationary elements inherent in our policies. Let me remind him once more of the balance of payments deficit and the enormous borrowing requirement—the biggest ever in our history in peace and war under the Conservative administration. Does he remember the last year and a half of his Government when they were spending money like water in every direction?
Mr. Peyton rose—
Mr. Short: I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I sat here and took it. The right hon. Gentleman has to learn to do that. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember—because he was a prominent member of that Government—the 2 million unemployed when the Conservatives lost the election and the three-day working week throughout most of the country? That is what the present Government inherited.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about a motor car. It was rather an obscure metaphor, but the motor car we inherited and had to jump on was travelling at 100 miles an hour, out of control, down a mountain pass. It is not remarkable that we have not got it under control yet. That is a much more appropriate metaphor, it the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about motor cars. If the Conservatives talk about the inflationary elements inherent in this Government's policies, they might look at some of the things we inherited from them.
Mr. Peyton: If the right hon. Gentleman is to make much, as he has done continually, of the borrowing requirement, he might remember what happened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Government said that he aimed to halve an admittedly high borrowing requirement which they inherited from the Conservatives. However, the borrowing requirement has more than doubled. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that if he wants to talk on this subject.
Mr. Short: This was mostly in social benefits. One of the biggest additions to the borrowing requirement was for the increase to pensioners, who had to be protected from what we inherited. The right hon. Gentleman has now admitted that there was an admittedly high borrowing
322
requirement. It was the biggest in peace or war. That is what we inherited from the Conservatives. It is not remarkable that it is still high.
I turn to a calmer subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised the question of the decision of the Court of Appeal today. This is a complex area of the law, and I do not wish to comment on the effect of a judgment delivered only a few hours ago. The Government have had no opportunity to see the judgment. The majority of demonstrations do not obstruct passage along the highway, and the majority of public meetings do not take place on the highway. I see no reason why hon. Members should feel themselves inhibited by the law from expressing their views. However, this judgment will be fully considered by the Government urgently.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised the question of inshore fishing limits. I accept that there is a real fear in the Western Isles, around Scotland and in my own area about this matter, and I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Member's request for a debate on the subject. I shall try to fit one in before the end of the Session.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) raised the question of the exchange rate and asked for a debate on this subject. However, I have already said that we hope to find an opportunity next week for a full day's debate on the economy. This will provide an appropriate opportunity to deploy the kind of arguments that he raised today.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) raised three very useful points, the sort of points that I believe an Adjournment debate is all about. First, he raised the question of the Maxwell Stamp Report. We accept that there is a demand for legislation on taxis and private hire cars, both in London and in the provinces. In formulating draft proposals on this subject we shall certainly take into account the recommendations of the report. I shall pass on to the appropriate Minister what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Members abroad. I thought that I had gone quite a long way to meet his

323
wishes in this matter. I arranged for the Ministry of Defence to fly the documents out on, I believe, the Wednesday morning. They were delivered to the hon. Gentleman and members of the Committee in Germany that Wednesday.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman did not help. The Ministry of Defence suddenly found that there was a plane going out. I am trying to establish the principle. I appreciate that he was trying to help, but it was the Ministry that suddenly found that the plane was going.
Mr. Short: I arranged for the documents to be put on that plane. That is not much help, but at least I did that.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment which included the phrase "The party's over". Local authorities are responsible for a major sector of public spending, and therefore any restraint in public expenditure must affect them. My right hon. Friend was simply making that point. The figures he gave were entirely accurate. He was perfectly entitled to make that point. Indeed, we are all entitled to make it over and over again.
The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) raised the important and compassionate point of compensation for Service men killed or injured in Northern Ireland. The House will be indebted to him for raising this matter in such a well-researched and moderate way and will have a good deal of sympathy with what he said. Compensation to people is payable in Northern Ireland at present under the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on 12th March that the operation of this Act was currently under review. I have just noticed that on the Order Paper for Thursday of this week there is a Question down to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). I should not like to anticipate the reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley raised the question of steel. I have already referred to closures. He
324
also raised the problem of steel in the EEC. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there has been no pressure from the Commission to make cuts in manpower in the British steel industry. The Commission has no power on its own to order a cutback in production. Under Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty, the assent of the Council of Ministers is needed for any system of production quotas. No British Minister would agree to any decision which would damage the interests of the British Steel Corporation. The suggestion that the problem is being hushed up until after the referendum has absolutely no foundation. The corporation's proposals for cuts in manpower, which the Government have viewed with deep concern, were put forward in the light of its own assessment of the industry's position.
There is a problem about steel in the EEC which was not resolved in the renegotiation. If the referendum decision is to remain in, we must continue the renegotiation on steel. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, this may involve revision of the treaty. I should have thought my hon. Friend would have welcomed that assurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) raised the question of injustice to certain newspapers which cannot get Government advertising. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office has given the correct and effective reply. If my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South arranges for us to receive accurate circulation figures for those newspapers, we shall consider the problem. I considered it 10 years ago, when I put the same point and never received the circulation figures.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) spoke about the textile industry. The Government are well aware of the seriousness of the present situation in the industry, and I know that many hon. Members are worried about it. We recognise that when demand for its products is at its present low level, imports have a particularly significant effect. We have demonstrated our readiness to add to the industry's already substantial level of protection from low-cost imports whenever further restrictions can be justified. We recently introduced import surveillance arrangements which will enable us to

325
monitor promptly and precisely a wide range of textile imports and which will help us to decide what further action, if any, may be necessary.
The British Textile Confederation has proposed a 20 per cent. cut across the board on the level of imports. Hon. Members have vigorously pursued their campaign in support of that proposal. Such restrictions would have major implications for Government policy. However, we are carefully considering all the possible consequences of the proposal before reaching a decision.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the footwear industry, of imports of men's leather footwear from Eastern Europe in particular. We are well aware that the high level of imports is causing great concern to the United Kingdom footwear industry. We have been holding a series of consultations with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania about the level of their exports of men's leather footwear to the United Kingdom. The discussions have taken longer than we would have wished but it is expected to be possible very shortly to make an announcement about their outcome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find the announcement to his satisfaction.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of mobile homes. There is a point here. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House last Friday when the Mobile Homes Bill was discussed. He will see at column 182 of the Official Report for 9th May that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replied on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) made two useful suggestions, one to save money, which I shall consider, and the other to spend money by providing envelopes for constituents to write to their Members. When I was Postmaster-General in the last Labour Government I tried out a similar idea on a modest scale for retired people and people living alone. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to see what she thinks about it.
I am as much concerned as my hon. Friend about New Palace Yard. I understand that it is likely to be finished in the
326
autumn. The lime trees are to be pleached, but it will be some time before they reach out their arms to grasp each other.
On that note, I commend the motion to the House.
Sir Frederic Bennett rose—
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman knows of my interest in a very human matter. I have done my best to raise with him whether we may have a definitive statement about our attitude towards the Vietnamese refugees, with particular reference to those stranded in Hong Kong. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman about the matter a few days ago, I think that he misunderstood. He referred me to a general Written Question, which I could not have seen then and which made it clear that the only refugees coming here would be those with close ties and connections with this country. There are obviously not many of them. As no such limitations were placed on the Chilean refugees, we are entitled to a statement to make sure that there is no element of double standards. These are matters of real hardship involving many thousands of people, including some for whom we have direct responsibility as the colonial Government.
Mr. Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about the question, as are a number of hon. Members. I replied off the cuff last Thursday. I remembered a Written Question down for that day, and I am afraid I breached the rules of order by quoting the answer. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that. I realise that it was not quite on the point he was making. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary what the hon. Gentleman has said and put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 23rd May do adjourn till Monday 9th June.

NATIONALISATION OF THE DUCHIES OF LANCASTER AND CORNWALL
7.16 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to take into public ownership without compensation the two estates known as the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.
I hope that I shall be allowed to introduce this relatively non-controversial Bill without a vote.
I should like to spend a minute or two on each of the estates in question. As the estate agents would say, the Duchy of Lancaster is a very desirable estate. It has been in existence since 1265, the land having been stolen or taken from Simon de Montfort and the Earl of Ferrers. Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why the revenues from both estates were not surrendered by the Crown within the terms of the so-called bargain struck in 1760.
I turn to one or two figures relating to the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1944 the total receipts from the estate were £154,791. In 1974 they were £1,226,966. Her Majesty the Queen's share of the swag was £100,000, tax-free, at the beginning of her reign. In 1972 –73 it had gone up to £295,000, and in 1973 –74 the Queen took £325,000.
I obtained some figures from the Treasury from which I ascertained that to have a net income of £300,000 in the year, unearned, which is what it was according to the Treasury, one would need a gross investment income of about £15 million in the year. I quote that figure as a measure of what the Crown is getting from what it chooses to describe as its private estate.
The year 1973 –74 was particularly good for income from what are called devolutions and forfeitures. For the benefit of the uninitiated I should explain that this is an income from the estates of people who die intestate and without traceable relatives. The whole of those estates go direct to the Duchy and in 1973 –74 they amounted to £164,825. In that same year rents provided £417,365.
It is not too well known that the accounts of the two Duchies, which are supposed to be private estates, are available
328
to Members not in the Vote Office but only on request in the Library. One has to have photocopies made because only one copy of the accounts is kept there. I have photocopies. From them one can discover that the salaries of the officials and functionaries in the Duchy of Lancaster in 1974 amounted to £94,532.
We as Members of Parliament may not know, are not allowed to know and never will know who is getting what for doing what. In other words, there is a complete lack of public accountability in these matters. To ask for information about the Duchy of Lancaster and still more about the Duchy of Cornwall is like trying to get information from the KGB. Journalists have told me that they have telephoned the Duchy of Cornwall office genuinely seeking information and have been told to mind their own ruddy business. So would I be, but I secured such information as I could garner from the annual accounts.
I turn to the Duchy of Cornwall. I shall give a brief historical outline of this estate. The Duchy was created in 1337 by Edward III with a Royal Charter—long before there was any element of parliamentary democracy—which created the eldest son of the monarch as the Duke of Cornwall. The estate was his of right, his private estate from that time onwards. That estate was originally stolen from the Earls of Cornwall. The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall therefore have one thing in common—they were both the result of Royal looting. That is why I am proposing a Bill to nationalise them without compensation so that there will be no cost to the taxpayer.
The Duchy of Cornwall comprises about 130,000 acres located between the flower fields of the Isles of Scilly and the Oval cricket ground in Kennington, from the tenant farms in Dartmouth to tenement property in Lambeth. In 1974 receipts from this estate were £1,339,010, of which £773,682 was from rents. The same applies with the Duchy of Cornwall as applies with the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of people who die intestate without known relatives. That money goes straight into the coffers of the Duchy, and therefore straight into the pocket of the Prince of Wales.

329
Last year money from that source amounted to £31,181. Who gets the rake off here? One need only refer again to the annual accounts. One finds that the salaries of the functionaries, the lackies, the hangers on—call them what you will—amounted to £103,338 in addition to over £93,000 for the salaries and expenses of land stewards, collectors and so forth. Payments made to the Prince of Wales in 1974 amounted to £202,173 tax free. That is the equivalent of a taxable income of about £10 million a year.
No one has yet told me, and no one was able to tell the Select Committee on which I sat three or four years ago, why this income is not taxed. It is time that it was. It is time that we took this measure of nationalisation. We have a lot of nationalisers on the Front Bench and they have my whole-hearted support. I hope that I shall find them in the Lobby with me tonight if there is a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. Mike Noble, and Mr. Russell Kerr.

NATIONALISATION OF THE DUCHIES OF LANCASTER AND CORNWALL
  NATIONALISATION OF THE DUCHIES OF LANCASTER AND CORNWALL
  Mr. William Hamilton accordingly presented a Bill to take into public ownership without compensation the two estates known as the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall; and for the purposes connected therewith: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th June and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CHILD BENEFIT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I had intended to open my remarks by saying that I was sure that the Bill would be generally welcomed on both sides of the House, but I had not expected to begin with the Opposition Front Bench totally denuded of talent. I am glad to see that hon. Members have hurried into the Chamber in order to endorse what I am about to say.
  It gives me the greatest pleasure to introduce the Bill, which I am sure will be accepted on all sides of the House. It achieves a long overdue merger between child tax allowances and family allowances into a new universal, non-means tested, tax-free cash benefit for all children, including the first, payable to the mother. In this way it ensures that the nation's provision for family support is concentrated first and foremost where it is needed most—on the poorest families; and that it goes to the person responsible for caring for the children and managing the budget for their food, clothing and other necessities.
  It is appropriate that this measure should be put before Parliament in International Women's Year because it supplements the other measures that the Government have been taking to help women play their vital rôle in society. International Women's Year has always been just as much concerned with the woman struggling at home to bring up a family as with the aspirations of her career sister.
  It may be premature to talk of giving the wife and mother her own wage, but she certainly needs control of her own budget if the family is to be fed and clothed. We all know how vitally important the family allowance has been—we have had examples of it brought to our attention in our constituencies—to many a hard-pressed mother, coming, as it does, into her hands in the middle of

  331
  the week just as her shopping money, probably inadequate in the first place, is ring low.
  The increase in family allowance last month for the first time since 1968 has been a blessed reinforcement for her in her hour of need. This Bill, transferring, as it does, the child tax relief from her husband's pay packet to her purse in the form of a cash allowance covering the first child is a further recognition of the importance of the job she is doing for society.
  The need for a merger of child tax relief and the family allowance has been recognised for a long time. The Labour Party in its 1969 document "Labour's Social Strategy" first set out its proposals for what later became its child endowment scheme. The Conservative Party took up this theme in its 1972 Green Paper which embodied a child credit in its overall tax credit scheme. As the House knows, I was a member of the Select Committee which examined our predecessors' proposals. As any member of that Committee would agree, one point soon emerged clearly from the Committee's examination—namely, that the women of this country would not tolerate the transformation of their cash family allowance into a tax credit which, by definition under a tax credit scheme, should be set against the husband's tax liability and therefore be swallowed up in his pay packet. Indeed, I presented a petition of over 300,000 signatures to Parliament at that time demanding that any support for children should be in the form not of a tax credit to the father but of a cash allowance payable to the mother through the Post Office. The Select Committee unanimously recommended that this should be done. This Bill is based on that formula.
  It is right that I should at this point pay a tribute to the trade union movement, which has always supported that formula and which pressed it on the Select Committee through the evidence given by the TUC, although the unions frankly recognised that this formula would affect their members' take-home pay. Undeterred, Vic Feather—now Lord Feather—gave us some robust evidence to the effect that the mother's rights must be safeguarded.
  332
  No doubt the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler)—or whichever Front Bench Member leads for the Opposition—will claim that what we are doing is too little and too late. I see other hon. Members no doubt poised to make the same claim. That will be unnecessary because the policy is so universally accepted and recognised as meeting my party's requirements. There is therefore no need for there to be any critics behind me. There is, in fact, none behind me. However, if that is to be the claim we shall hear this afternoon, it will be typical of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives gave a promise in the 1970 Election that they would increase family allowances but still had not done so when they fell from office in 1974. Instead, we were given a Green Paper—a hopeful postponement was represented by the colour green—on an elaborate new tax credit scheme.
  I hope that we shall not hear the pretence this afternoon that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were now in office they would be in the middle of introducing a scheme. They know perfectly well that their scheme was immensely costly because inevitably, under the structure of the tax credit scheme, the value of the credits had to be given to everyone regardless of need. Indeed, under the 1972 Conservative proposals, £745 million of the estimated cost of £1,300 million—that is, over half the cost—would have gone to those earning above average national earnings at that time, that is, those earning £1,600 per annum or more. Even those at the top of the income range would have received a bonus under the tax credit scheme running into a cost to the Exchequer of millions of pounds.
  The Opposition know that the cost would be much greater today than the figure outlined in the Green Paper of 1972. Indeed, to achieve the social aims of that Green Paper would today cost £3,000 million. No wonder therefore that the Conservative Party was so careful not to commit itself in its election manifestos in the two elections of last year to introducing a tax credit scheme.
  We were told in the manifesto last October that the Conservative Government would bring the scheme into effect in stages as economic circumstances permitted—a very cunning bit of hedging.

  333
  We were told that stage 1 would be the introduction of child credits, but there was no firm timing in the election manifesto even on that. Even stage 1 would be implemented, we were warned, only when economic circumstances allowed. Since the economic circumstances which the Conservatives bequeathed to this Government were hardly propitious, and since the main complaint that they have launched against us ever since we were returned to office is that we have increased public expenditure too much, it is hardly likely that we would have had a child benefit scheme from them, let alone a full tax credit scheme.
  With the Shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), accusing the Government, as he did in the House the other day, of gross overspending and demanding more and tougher cuts in public expenditure, does anyone imagine that he would, if he were Chancellor, be authorising at this moment the expenditure of £3,000 million on a tax credit scheme? I hope that we shall have no fictitious claims from the Opposition this afternoon.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the Secretary of State will not say what the cost of her programme under the Bill will be, and as it was said in answer to Questions that we should have to wait to see what resources would be available in 1976–77, does she accept that she is not putting forward the best answer to the argument that this is too little and too late? If the Secretary of State wishes to address herself to that argument, will she accept the background that the actions of the Chancellor in refusing to raise tax allowances, as the Child Poverty Action Group has clearly shown, have had the effect of depressing the real living standards of low wage earners with families, who represent the target area? If the Secretary of State will not accept that as the background to what the Government have done so far, does she realise that those interested in this subject might regard what she has said as sanctimonious clap trap?
  Mrs. Castle: One of the actions of my Government was to raise the family allowance without delay for the first time since 1968. The Opposition promised in the election of 1970 to raise the family allowances,
  334
  and received the support of the Child Poverty Action Group for their promise, which they have deliberately broken since then. As my speech evolves, let us wait and see where the argument lies at the end of the day. I start at that point. Last month we increased the family allowance to £1·50, the first increase since 1968. I shall have something to say about the attitude of the Child Poverty Action Group before I am through.
  Our alternative policy has been to tackle poverty in two main ways—first, by our promised increase in pensions and other long-term benefits, an increase of 72 per cent. since we came into office, and secondly, by the increase in family support which I have outlined. We did that as quickly as possible. We did it despite the economic difficulties we faced because we believed that these groups needed help more, not less, when the going was tough. Hence this Bill.
  What will the child benefit scheme achieve? First, and most important, the poorer families who have not been able to take advantage of child tax allowance in full, if at all, because of their low incomes, will in future do so, as the new benefit extends the cash advantage of the allowance to all these families. Those who are dependent on means-tested benefits will receive a larger part of their income from benefits as of right. Secondly, child benefit will be paid for every single child in the family, thus extending the benefit of a payment to the first child in 4 million families drawing family allowance as well as to the 3 million single-child families, thus doubling the number of children receiving benefit. Thirdly, once the scheme is operating, we shall have for the first time a single universal system of family support.
  This brings me to the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), which I have no desire to evade—why we have not put any figures of the cost of the scheme in the Bill or in the covering Financial and Explanatory Memorandum. The reason is that neither the extra expenditure involved, nor the net cost to the Exchequer after taking into account the effect on tax revenue, can be quantified now because they will depend mainly on the rate of child benefit, which

  335
  will not be decided until next year, appropriately to the circumstances that obtain next year. The scheme is, of course, potentially expensive, and the rate and thus the extent of the improvement—I emphasise "improvement"—will have to be settled in the light of the economic prospect at the time. As the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement, we shall need to accommodate the cost of the new scheme within the total which, in the light of future reviews, we conclude that we can devote to public expenditure at large in the years beyond 1976–77.
  Some indication can, however, be given of how the costing of illustrative rates of child benefit would be approached on the hypothetical basis that the scheme would be introduced this year. For illustration, let us assume that, of the present three rates of child tax allowances, it would be the rate applicable to children under 11, currently £240 a year, which would be replaced by child benefits, and that the extra amounts for children over 11 would be retained as residual tax allowances.
  On these hypothetical assumptions, and taking into account savings on other social security benefits, the child benefit rate, which would involve no extra net cost to the Exchequer, would be about £1·94 a week. Under this nil cost formula, of course, the poorest families below the tax threshold and not already on social security benefit would gain the full £1·94 for the first child and 44p for each other child. Every extra 1p on this rate of £1·94 would involve a net cost to the Exchequer of about £61½ million per year net of savings on other social security benefits. I must repeat, however, that this approach is based on illustrative assumptions and on current rates of tax, clawback, family allowances and child tax allowances and cannot be taken as anything but a very rough guide. The House pressed for illustrative figures and I have tried to give them. I hope that no unwarranted deductions will be drawn from the figures which I have given for purely illustrative purposes.
  On the assumptions I have taken, the gross cost of a hypothetical child benefit rate of £1·94 a week would be about £1,450 million a year, or, after taking into account savings on other social security
  336
  benefits, about £1,330 million a year, which is what we are now spending on family allowances and child tax allowances at £240 per child. There would be no additional cost to the Exchequer, but public expenditure would show an increase of about £800 million a year to reflect the conversion into public expenditure of the present cost of child tax allowances.
  I now turn to the starting date. As the House knows, it has proved physically impossible to launch the scheme until 1977, and this has been a great disappointment to me personally. It was certainly our original intention that the benefit would start in April next. The facts are these.
  We need 2,200 staff centrally for this task and we need to house them in the Newcastle or Washington New Town area because FAM work is centralised at Newcastle where the relevant computer facilities are. It became clear early last year that the purpose-built accommodation we had on order would not be available for an April 1976 start. Arrangements were therefore made for us to have the temporary use of a large building being erected in the centre of Washington by Property Services Agency. All seemed well, but then, last autumn we learned that the completion of this building would be seriously delayed because high alumina cement had been used in the manufacture of pre-cast concrete units which formed an integral part of the construction of the building. These had to be tested comprehensively before construction could continue.
  So that building could not be ready for a 1976 start either; and there was nowhere else available in the Newcastle-Washington area big enough to house so many staff and be ready for a start in April 1976. An April 1976 start meant, of course, getting into the building well before then, in the summer of this year. So we were forced back to April 1977. The scheme has to start in April because that is the beginning of the tax year and the benefit is in part a replacement for a tax allowance.
  It was at this point that I determined that, given a 1977 start for the general child benefit scheme, something must be done in 1976 to help the one group of readily identifiable people whom, it is generally accepted, are particularly

  337
  disadvantaged amongst family groups, namely the one-parent family. So there is to be an interim benefit of £1·50 a week for the one-parent family for a year from April 1976 until the child benefit scheme comes into effect. This will bring immediate help at that point in time to over 250,000 such families who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit or of a social security benefit which, in the dependency allowance for the first child, already compensates for the absence of family allowance for that child.
  It is necessary for me to refer only briefly to the contents of the Bill because it is mercifully straightforward compared with some of the complicated pensions legislation with which we have all had to deal. Therefore, I shall be brief because it is a short debate and I want to give hon. Members a chance to participate.
  The first five clauses contain the meat of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for child benefits to be paid to a person for any child for whom he is responsible, out of moneys provided by Parliament. It also provides for the payment of family allowances to cease. Clause 2 defines a child as a person under 16 or a person between 16 and 19 who is undergoing full-time education, with provision in Clause 4(1) for such groups to be excluded from this definition as may be appropriate.
  Clause 3 together with Clause 4(2) defines who is the person who is to be treated as responsible for a child. Unlike family allowances where priority is given to the parent, priority of title to child benefit will belong to the person with whom the child is living, and where a child is living with both his parents the mother will have priority.
  Clause 5 provides that child benefit shall be payable at such weekly rate as may be prescribed. It is our intention to introduce child benefit, in the simplest form, at a flat rate, but Clause 5 allows for different rates to be prescribed in relation to different cases—for instance, by reference to the age of a child. We shall have the operational capacity to do such variations if desired when our new computer equipment becomes available a couple of years after the start of the scheme.
  The next batch of Clauses — Clauses 6 to 12—provides the administrative framework
  338
  for child benefit, much of which is common form to social security benefits in general. The national insurance adjudication system is to be applied with insurance officers, local tribunals and national insurance commissioners. The clauses deal with arrangements for recovery of over-payments, provision of information, details of offences under the Act and provision whereby benefit is made inalienable.
  One provision to which I should draw the attention of the House is Clause 10, which permits the Revenue to disclose information necessary to the running of the scheme to officials of my Department, subject, of course, to proper safeguards. As the House will appreciate, the close liaison between the two Departments needed for the child benefit scheme makes such disclosure essential.
  Clauses 13 to 15 cover the residence requirement and reciprocal agreements with Northern Ireland and other countries. The effect of the residence conditions will be that child benefit will be paid not later than six months after a person enters this country. This is a more generous rule in many respects than that for family allowances. Whilst the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, it is intended that a similar measure will be introduced in respect of Northern Ireland by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
  Part II of the Bill in Clauses 16 to 18 deals with three important items. I think I should draw the attention of the House first to Clause 16, which provides for the interim benefit and its administration. It will have the same effect for most one-parent families as if a family allowance were payable for the only, elder or eldest child in such a family. The benefit is to be taken fully into account for supplementary benefit purposes and is to be paid at the same rate as that running for family allowance at the time it is introduced, which, as I have said, will be April 1976. It will also be subject to income tax and to clawback on 50p of the total sum in the same way as family allowance now is. This will be provided for in the Finance Bill.
  Sir George Young: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady. Do I understand that the first interim benefit will be taxable whereas

  339
  the child benefit scheme as a whole, when it is introduced, will be tax free?
  Mrs. Castle: Yes, the interim benefit is an extension of the family allowance to the first child. Therefore, it is being treated as the family allowance is being treated for tax purposes.
  As I was saying, the tax arrangements will be provided for in the Finance Bill. I realise that there may be a number of points of detail which hon. Members might like to raise on the interim benefit. I will leave those matters to be answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
  There are only two points that I emphasise now. First, the benefit is purely a temporary one. We have been bound to go for a simple scheme as the price of doing something quickly. I say that to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). To get anything into payment so quickly meant that we could not go in for any kind of elaborations. We had to extend the family allowance in the simplest form possible to the first child of one-parent families. That was the price of doing something quickly for a particular group of one-parent families rather than letting them wait until 1977.
  The second point I must make is that the adjudication arrangements for the interim benefit, although different from those of the child benefit for reasons we can no doubt discuss in Committee, have been approved by the Council on Tribunals.
  Clause 17 makes provision whereby benefits and increases of benefits in respect of children under the Social Security Act 1975 may be reduced to take account of the introduction of child benefit and of any subsequent increases in the rate of child benefit. This continues the long-standing practice whereby dependency benefits paid, for instance, with sickness, unemployment and invalidity benefit are set at a rate which takes account of family allowance, so that together the payments provide a uniform level of income for each child.
  Finally, I come to Clause 18, which, by repealing paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, abolishes the wage-stop. Unemployed claimants and others who are temporarily
  340
  out of employment will no longer have their benefit restricted to the level of their net weekly earnings when working full-time in their normal occupation.
  Financially this is a modest step, affecting only a small number of families, but it removes an injustice which currently deprives these hard-hit families of an average of £2 a week of their income and, incidentally, causes an inordinate amount of irritatingly complex work to those of my staff who have to administer it. Since the peak of November 1970 the number of wage-stopped claimants has dropped from 35,000 to about 5,000 at present, and it seems to us intolerable to continue it. It is, of course, the substantial improvements we have made in the FIS prescribed amounts and in the needs allowances for rent and rates rebates, which have unlocked the door to this reform. Here I pay a special tribute to the Child Poverty Action Group, which has campaigned for the abolition of wage-stop for the best part of a decade. Certainly the staff in my local offices welcome this step as much as CPAG.
  The remainder of the Bill covers the transitional and financial provisions. On the latter, of course, until a rate of child benefit is settled, it is not possible for us to give any figure of benefit costs. The administrative costs, once the scheme is under way, will be £10·5 million more than the present family allowance scheme, largely because of higher Post Office charges. As for the two minor items, interim benefit is expected to cost about £21 million, together with a £1·5 million administrative charge. We are extending the hand of help to one-parent families, which is not to be despised. The cost of abolishing the wage-stop is unlikely to exceed £100,000 in a full year. That is the Bill that I commend to the House.
  I can best sum up its significance in the terms used by the Child Poverty Action Group in a statement circulated by the group to Members for this debate. The group says:
  "The Child Poverty Action Group welcomes the introduction of the Child Benefit Bill. This Bill, when fully in force, will be the most important change since 1946 in provisions within the social security system for the main tenance of children. The group has for a long time argued that adequate benefits for all children paid without means tests are a crucial first step towards the abolition of family

  341
  poverty and the Bill provides the machinery for this."
  Of course, the group has a number of details which it would like to see altered in the Bill. That is to be expected, and we can argue them out in Committee. I think that. I can explain away a number of misunderstandings that the CPAG seems to be harbouring about certain items. For instance, I repeat that it is impossible to introduce the scheme by April 1976 as the CPAG demands.
  The German experience it quotes is not relevant to the procedures and practices of this country. I can say that with authority because I made a special trip to West Germany to examine for myself at first hand their machinery for introducing a family allowance scheme for the first child and to compare it with what was possible in this country. I found that the practices were entirely different. The main point is that we have established in the Bill new principles of social provision and the machinery to operate them as quickly as possible. As the CPAG says:
  "It is the most important change since 1946 in our system of family support."
  Once again, it is a Labour Government who are introducing it.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: Although the right hon. Lady makes it somewhat difficult by adopting her party political approach to the earlier part of her speech, let me say first that we welcome the Bill.
  I think that Members in all parties will agree that the House has a special responsibility when dealing with the interests of children. That is a point which was made some years ago in the House by a speaker who said:
  "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and a matter of honour."
  Those were the words of William Pitt in 1796. They were wise words, although it is fair to say that the country had to wait for a further 150 years and the Beveridge Report before children's allowances, now called family allowances, were introduced. It has taken a further 30 years to see that allowance extended to the first child. The reforms in the Bill are valuable. I only hope that the right hon. Lady will concede that there has been considerable all-party pressure about
  342
  this and will not claim too much for herself.
  I shall give just one example. I may be wrong, but the interim benefit proposed in the Bill—£1·50 for the head of a one-parent family in the case of the first child—seems to bear a remarkable resemblance to a new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has done outstanding service in this area, on the Social Security Benefits Bill. In January my hon. Friend proposed the same amount and that the same new group should be given that entitlement. I think that there was one slight difference. On that occasion virtually the whole of the Labour Party—275 Members in all—obediently trotted through the Lobby led by none other than the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and voted it down. Yet it is that clause that the Government are now introducing in the Bill. It is possible to make snide remarks about Old Testament prophets without beards, but someone, it seems, has done a remarkable conversion job on the Government.
  Mrs. Castle: I would point out that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend has benefited enormously from the unfortunate practice of Press leaks.
  Mr. Fowler: I do not know whether my hon. Friend understands that intervention. I certainly do not.
  It is also right to recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Government's Green Paper on the tax credit scheme included a proposal for child credits. After discussion, it was agreed that the child credit should be paid in cash to mothers in the same way as the child benefits in this Bill. Therefore, we obviously welcome the fact that the Government have accepted at least this part of the tax credit scheme. We sincerely hope that they will accept the rest of the scheme. I shall come back to that point later.
  Perhaps we should also take into account one other benefit at this stage. In this debate we are basically talking about family poverty and how best we can bring help and support. In 1970 the Conservative Government introduced the Family Income Supplement Scheme as a first step to tackling the problem

  343
  of family poverty. It was intended as a first step and would eventually have been replaced by the tax credit scheme. It was an honest attempt to help those most in need. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will take the opportunity of at least confirming its value. I think that the right hon. Lady would concede that in opposition her supporters were less than kind about the scheme. In government, however, they have not only retained the scheme but they have increased it once and on Thursday they will seek to increase it again.
  But there is still one curious aspect about the Government's policy. Although they retain the scheme, they seem to spend less and less on advertising it and letting the public know of the help which is available. Yet, as Margaret Bramall said on BBC radio this morning and as Frank Field has pointed out on a number of occasions, many people do not know of its existence. If the Government's aim is to use the Family Income Supplement Scheme, they should seek new ways of making it known.
  The context of the Bill, Mr. Speaker—I am sorry; Mr. Deputy Speaker—is family poverty. I do not think that any one of the few hon. Members in the House at the moment would question that the position of the poor in Britain is fast becoming critical. We are used to talking about inflation eroding people's standard of living. With the very low paid, there is not much to erode before the situation within the family becomes acute. Unemployment looms as a real threat, and the Chancellor now threatens to cut back further the social services. But let him not think for a moment that his policies, or lack of policies, are not already having an effect on the very people whom the social services are intended to help.
  If the Chancellor does not believe me, let him look at the memorandum prepared by the Child Poverty Action Group, which the right hon. Lady has quoted in some respects, entitled "Reducing the Poor's Living Standards at a Stroke". I think that that phrase will be familiar to the right hon. Lady. The point made by the Child Poverty Action Group is that the Labour Government are reducing the standard of living of the poor in Britain.
  344
  On Second Reading of the Social Security Pensions Bill I said that unless this Government controlled inflation, Bills like the Child Benefit Bill would be worth very little indeed. Inflation affects everyone in this country, but it perhaps strikes hardest at those who are already living in poverty, in slum housing and in need.
  We make that point from this side of the House because we do not want to see the Bill defeated by inflation and we recognise that if the economic situation deteriorates further it will be the children who suffer most, just as at present it is the children who are put at risk by poverty. Mr. Speaker, the problem of poverty and how it affects children—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I am sorry for intervening. I appreciate the hon. Member's elevation of my status, but, as he will see, I am not wearing a wig. The hon. Member once corrected himself, but it is rather embarrassing to be referred to as somebody whom one is not. In case the hon. Member does not understand, may I say that he has several times referred to me as Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Fowler: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I full understood the point you were making.
  The problem itself is well known and I should like to draw attention to two aspects of it. First, I draw attention to a valuable work carried out, with the help of the right hon. Lady's Department, by Dr. Harriet Wilson called "Parenting in Poverty". In that work she examined the experience of a sample of children in a Midlands city, and at every stage she found difficulties for the poor parent and the children.
  With the four-year-olds the task of mothering had been delegated in many large families. An older sister was made responsible for one of the younger children, and as the four-year-olds shared bedrooms and beds with elder sisters the delegation became fairly complete. As regards the elder children, the survey showed that two-thirds of the families never took their children out. Family holidays were virtually unknown, and there were very few shared activities between parents and children.

  345
  Many of the mothers had histories of mental trouble, including suicide attempts. Dr. Wilson observes:
  "In the milieu of poverty all the families suffer from bad diet, lack of sleep, polluted air and untreated conditions of ill-health".
  Extra financial help will not cure all these problems overnight, but it will help, as it will help also in the case of the one-parent family. The Finer Report has comprehensively set out the problems in this respect, and again it is financial problems which are acute.
  We have the evidence of a survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—Families in Need. The study consisted of separate surveys of five different local authority areas. In each area one finding was consistent—that the income of fatherless families was less than half the income of two-parent families. If we believe in channelling help to those who need it, here without doubt is a group who actually need it.
  Having welcomed the Bill in general terms, I should like to turn to six areas on which we have questions to which I should like the Minister, in summing up, to turn his attention. Some of these questions have already been touched on by the right hon. Lady in her opening remarks.
  First, there is the question of the timing of the child benefit. The right hon. Lady will know—she has made it clear—the concern outside this House on this question. The Labour Party committed itself to child benefits in the election of February 1974 and again in the election of October 1974. The assumption was that this benefit would become payable in April 1976. Indeed that was the message which the right hon. Lady, certainly by implication, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington when she wrote to him last August. She said then that the scheme could not start before April 1976. She added for good measure
  "that few laymen seem able to comprehend the scale and complexity of the operations involved."
  I shall give her the credit and take it that those words were drafted for her by civil servants, because they certainly bear the hallmark of the slightly patronising view of bureaucracy.
  What laymen and, indeed, laywomen are able to comprehend is that the Department
  346
  of Health and Social Security has quite a habit of making administrative excuses for delay in implementing policy. They can also comprehend—we shall want to go into this a little more closely than the right hon. Lady did in the final seconds of her speech—when they look across the Channel to other countries that other countries seem to be able to manage their administrative problems a little more successfully.
  The Secretary of State mentioned Germany. It is true that Germany managed to introduce this sort of scheme in six months. Laymen are also able to comprehend that Britain is the last major European country to introduce this sort of scheme for the first child. Indeed, our position as compared with that of Europe was never put better than by the adviser to the right hon. Lady, Professor Brian Abel Smith, when he addressed a recent conference. He observed:
  "Basic flat rate pensions are higher in the Netherlands than in Britain … most European countries have better provision for invalidity … and France has better provision for mothers and children."
  Those are wise words.
  Given that the right hon. Lady has certain hang-ups about her Government's policy on the Common Market, I should have thought that her aim should be to catch up as soon as possible. We find, however, that the right hon. Lady is caught with her feet stuck firmly in high alumina cement. That is, after all, the Department's latest explanation, which we shall want to examine and probe more deeply in Committee.
  The second question on which I should like to touch—in fairness to the right hon. Lady, I must say that she has answered most of the points about this—concerns the financial details of the scheme. The right hon. Lady will appreciate that there is little in the Bill which helps us to understand how big the benefit will be or how much it will cost. She has given illustrative material regarding the cost in terms of public expenditure, and we are grateful for that. On the benefit itself, I think I understood her correctly in saying and confirming that it will be tax-free and, therefore, that the child benefit, as opposed to the interim benefit, will avoid the poverty trap. That being the case, it is something we shall welcome.

  347
  The third point is how the new benefit or the interim benefit helps the very poorest who are dependent on supplementary benefit. Will not the effect be that although they will get the new benefit they will also lose their entitlement to supplementary benefit by the same amount? In other words, they will certainly get the benefit as of right, but financially they will not be better off. If that is the case, and if the Government confirm it, have they contemplated some extra arrangement on disregards?
  Fourthly, there is a matter on which the right hon. Lady did not touch, namely, the position of widowed mothers. The Chancellor has made it clear that the widowed mother will not get the interim benefit. That is because the widowed mother's allowance already includes an allowance for herself and her children. Are we to assume from that that the widowed mother also will not gain from the child benefit itself?
  My fifth point is more in the nature of a suggestion than a question. One obvious effect of the introduction of this scheme is that the take-home pay of the father will reduce, because it is implicit in the scheme that as the mother receives the new benefit so the father loses his child tax allowance. Clearly there is a danger here that the reduction in the take-home pay could—I put it no higher—trigger off a new round of wage demands.
  Therefore, will the Government at least consider examining the feasibility of showing on the father's pay slip the amount that is being paid to the mother, the aim obviously being to give him a picture of family income and to show that the family is better rather than worse off?
  My sixth and last point concerns research into the workings of the scheme. When Beveridge reported he came out against the payment of any allowances for the first child because he took the view that everyone should be able to support one child without help. Later experience has shown that it is the first children who are more expensive and for whom the need often shows most acutely. I mentioned that to make this point. It has always seemed to me quite extraordinary how much money we are
  348
  prepared as a nation to spend not only with an imperfect idea of what we are doing but with only the haziest idea at times of what effect the money that we are spending so freely is having. That comment applies not only to the DHSS but to many other Government Departments concerned in the home and social spheres.
  If we are to use resources most effectively, the Bill should be accompanied by continuous research into, for example, its effect on one-parent families.
  There are other points in the Bill—for example, the question of the wage-stop. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will deal with this more fully when he speaks. Doubtless we shall want to examine it in Committee, although I certainly take the point made by the right hon. Lady about the few people it affects and the small expenditure involved.
  However, I should like to make one major point. There is general agreement in this House that it should be our aim to provide more help for poorer families. There is general agreement that we want this help to go as of right and without all of the problems of take-up. There is also general agreement, I assume that the Bill deals with only one part of the problem of poorer families. It is an important part. It is a vital part but it still leaves, for example, the 2 million pensioners at present living in retirement who are dependent upon supplementary benefit.
  There is general agreement on all sides of the House on this matter. Can we not agree, therefore, on a path forward? In particular, can we not now agree that the tax credit scheme, of which the Child Benefit Bill is only a part, provides such a path? Clearly the Conservative Party is committed to the tax credit scheme. In saying that, I do not seek to establish that it is the idea of only one party or that it has the support of only my party. It has the support of the Liberal Party. It has the support of some in the right hon. Lady's party. It had the blessing of the late Richard Crossman and the support of the former Douglas Houghton, then Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. What is perhaps most telling of all for the right hon. Lady, is that it has the support of

  349
  her own special adviser, Professor Brian Abel Smith, who has called it
  "The largest single step forward in nearly universal provision for the poor and for social dependants since the post-war developments stemming from the Beveridge Report."
  The reason for that support is clear. It provides benefit as of right and directs it to those who need it. It does something further which is urgently required: it brings into the system a simplicity which is so urgently needed at this stage. At present there are about 44 different means-tested benefits in operation, plus other benefits which are not means-tested. The system is becoming a jungle of regulations requiring a detailed map for the claimant. Some master the jungle and get the help they need, but others do not. That cannot be a satisfactory situation in the view of any hon. Member.
  Mrs. Castle: This is a serious point. One of the reasons why some of us who were members of the Select Committee came out against the tax credit scheme was that even in the expensive form in which it was proposed at that time it did not begin to get rid of those 44 means tests. Effectively it got rid of only one of them.
  Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Lady is being less than frank about what the effects of the tax credit scheme would be. What I am really saying to her is this. We are not urging her to implement the whole tax credit scheme immediately. She is right on that matter. That has not been our position. In present circumstances it would be absurd. We say, however, that it would be a tremendous advance if she announced her agreement in principle with a scheme which would make a substantial contribution to eliminating poverty, because that surely is what the tax credit plan is. It is a comprehensive anti-poverty programme.
  A few weeks ago the right hon. Lady came to the House with the Social Security Pensions Bill. Many of my hon. Friends who are present today were present on that occasion. We made it clear that we did not want pensions to become a party political football. We had amendments to the Bill to make, and they are being made in Committee. But we wanted to reach an agreed basis upon which to build.
  350
  I suggest to the right hon. Lady that here is a similar test for herself. She may not accept the tax credit system in all its details. She may want to change it. Very well—no one pretends that it is the last word. But let her at least announce her agreement in principle to it, so that we can all work, men and women in all parties, to eliminate poverty in this country.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mrs. Helene Hayman: It is a great pleasure to be able to support in the House a new non-means-tested social security benefit. It is a long time since the House has seen the introduction of such a benefit. Credit should be paid to the work that has been done in its introduction.
  I was delighted to hear the stream of invective against the bureaucracy, the uncertainty and the inefficiency of means-tested benefits that came from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that in future the House will be united on this issue and that we shall no longer see the introduction of benefits of that very unuseful kind.
  I was very taken with the idea of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) that husbands should be informed of what their wives were getting in family allowances. That is absolutely right in these days of equality, and I completely agree with him. But I hoped that he would make it clear that he supports the corollary—that when any wife picks up her family allowances she should be told what her husband is earning. It is, after all, slightly more than the family allowances.
  Coming to the Bill, I welcome heartily the precision that has been slipped into Clause 18—if I may put it thus—dealing with the abolition of the wage-stop. Many of us have felt very strongly about this for a long time. It has caused great and unnecessary hardship to many poor families. We are very glad to see the end of it. I can only say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I wish that she had slipped in two abolitions in the Bill and that we could have seen the abolition of the cohabitation rule at the same time. Had those two rules gone we could all have been happier with the resultant workings of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

  351
  The Bill's main provisions—the introduction of family allowance for the first child and the phasing out of tax allowances—are a very significant departure from a philosophy that has dogged us for years in fighting for increases in family allowances and for allowances for the first child. These provisions are a recognition that economic circumstances have changed drastically since the days of Beveridge, and that the assumption on which the whole family allowances scheme was built, that a husband's earnings would support himself, a wife and one child, is absolutely a part of the history books. It is no longer a part of the economic reality for families in Britain.
  As has been pointed out, very often it is the birth of the first child that is the crisis point in economic terms for many young families. Until the birth of that child the pattern in most families is for there to be two wage earners, two wages coming in and two mouths to feed. It is with the birth of the first child that suddenly there is only one wage coming into the family and three mouths to feed, and no help coming from the social security system. Therefore, the introduction of a benefit for the first child is an enormous step forward.
  I should not have thought, however, that it was such an enormous step forward, because it seems a very logical thing to do. However, knowing of the fight that people in this House have had about introducing it, I see it as an enormous step.
  Of course, I am disappointed at the timing of the introduction. My right hon. Friend will not think that she has a critic on the benches behind her if I voice that disappointment. It is only right that when a measure of this sort is introduced, those of us who care and who welcome it should also say where we think it is deficient and where it should go further, and we should be prepared to fight for it to go further. We must be disappointed at the date of the introduction.
  I recognise the serious and very practical difficulties that face the Department in this respect. However, one looks at the experience of other countries. Furthermore, what always comes to my mind is the speed and efficiency of identification that we managed when petrol rationing
  352
  was in everyone's mind and the speed with which the different coupons for all the cars were distributed. Cars were identified and their owners were identified, and the coupons were issued through post offices. It is not only a matter of resources, not only a matter of staff, not only a matter of buildings; it is also a matter of political will, and it is the political will nationally, it is the political will of this House, apart from the handful of hon. Members who are here tonight, that it is necessary to mobilise if we are to see the benefit brought in earlier, as I hope we shall.
  Turning to Clause 5, may I say how glad I was to hear the Secretary of State refer to the possibility of grading the new child benefit according to age. It could be a most significant step, when we are introducing a new benefit, when we are completely revamping the scheme of family support, to look at the problems that relate to different ages of children. Of course it is enormously difficult to do, and with the present administrative machine I would think almost impossible, but there is no reason why, when we have the proper computer facilities, we should not be able to grade allowances according to age. Everyone who has ever thought about it for a minute knows that it is much cheaper to feed and clothe an 18-month-old baby than it is to feed and clothe a 15-year-old teenager. It is necessary that we make this sort of distinction and that we recognise that arbitrary lines will have to be drawn here and age distinctions made, but it will be invaluable and make a much more sensitive benefit if we are able to age-grade it.
  The interim benefit for one-parent families must be welcomed by all of us who have worked for this group and in this field—welcomed not only for the practical help that it will give to the one-parent families involved but also for the recognition that it gives to the special needs of that group. I often feel that lone parents and their children suffer not only the practical problems—and God knows they suffer those—of poverty, bad housing and lack of day care and resources, but also from being ignored or brushed under the carpet or not being seen as a group that deserve support for the job they are doing in bringing up their children single-handed. That is

  353
  why, although I have argued before about the specific measures which the Chancellor introduced, I think it was a tremendous boost for lone parents and their children when he singled them out as the group most in need.
  But I am concerned at the lack of help that this interim benefit will bring for the 250,000 lone parents and their children who are depending on supplementary benefit. Although they will pick up their child benefit at the post office, they will lose it when they go round to the DHSS; it will be knocked off their supplementary benefit. I think that we must look again at whether this particular benefit—and it is an interim benefit, it is an emergency aid, it is only a one-year scheme—could be discounted for the purpose of assessing supplementary benefit.
  I know all the problems which are entailed when one starts doing this with a non-means-tested benefit and when one starts bringing more people into eligibility for supplementary benefit. But there are two arguments. One is that we are dealing with a unique situation, an interim, a stop-gap measure. The other, of course, is that many of us would like to see the real solution to the financial problems of one-parent families in a non-means-tested benefit as of right for them quite separate from supplementary benefit. We know that supplementary benefit is inadequate. It is a wrongly-devised system to cope with the long-term needs of families in poverty. It is designed to give emergency, short-term help. It should not be the system whereby we support parents and children over years—and that is the reality for many one-parent families in this country.
  Finally, we shall have to fight both on the size of this benefit and on its timing. We shall have to fight very hard. I should like to see written into the Bill regular upgradings of family allowances or benefits. That is the voice of not long but bitter experience of having to fight each time round when we wanted a rise in family allowances, against the fears that are always expressed from all quarters that it will be unpopular, that it will not be on, that it will have to be argued out with the Treasury. Rightly, we do not have this sort of argument over pensions. We should not have such arguments over child benefit either. It
  354
  should be written into the statute that this benefit will be regularly reviewed and regularly upgraded, and with the current situation I do not think once a year is sufficiently regular.
  Ultimately this House, the Government and we as a society will be judged on our treatment of children and on the attack we make on family poverty. We shall be judged not on the number of tears shed when the occasional terrible tragedy occurs but on the action we take in the less glamorous, less dramatic field: the unpopular, unfashionable worlds of prevention. We shall be judged not on the tears shed after the event, tragic and terrible, but on the money that is spent on support—not only direct financial support but social work and nursery support and support in terms of good housing and adequate facilities.
  We shall be judged after the event not by how many of us gather to shed our tears and beat our breasts but on the amount of money that even at a time of national crisis, when we are doing all we can to cut down public expenditure, we are willing to give to protect those most vulnerable in our society.
  8.37 p.m.
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) who I believe was absent from the Division Lobby at 6.25 p.m. on 29th January when the House divided on a new clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) sought to introduce into the Social Security Benefits Bill. It was hard to believe, listening to the Secretary of State, who I am sorry to see is leaving the Chamber, that she is a leading member of a party that marched shoulder to shoulder through the Division Lobby that evening to obstruct something which has been welcomed so warmly by her this evening.
  On that occasion in January my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington moved new Clause 2, which would have given an allowance of £1·50 to the eldest child of one-parent families. Only a few weeks ago the Under-Secretary told us that the Government could not entertain such a measure. That was, he said, because of
  "major computing programme difficulties, major printing programmes, housing difficulties

  355
  and staffing problems."—[Official Report, 29th Jan., 1975; Vol. 885, c. 457.]
  All of those problems have miraculously been erased in a few weeks. I wonder whether the reason for delaying the announcement on this proposal is simply that the new clause introduced in January was introduced by a Conservative Member.
  We must contrast the 275 Members who trooped through the Lobby against the new clause that evening with the three or perhaps five Labour Members present tonight. The right hon. Lady was pushing her luck a little when she criticised the previous Conservative administration for their delay in dealing with family allowances. It is true that in three years and eight months the previous Conservative Government did not review family allowances. But it will be three years and two months before the Labour Government honour the commitment which they gave in last February's election. There is not a lot of difference between those intervals.
  The amount of the new benefit has tantalisingly been omitted from the Bill, which makes it impossible to assess its impact on family poverty and other related problems. The right hon. Lady said in her Departmental Press release issued on 28th April:
  "The Government aim in the Child Benefit Bill is to improve and simplify the system of family benefits by combining existing family allowances with income tax child allowances."
  I assume that by the word "improve" the right hon. Lady means that she hopes to increase the amount of support going to families.
  An examination of Command 5879 "Public Expenditure to 1978–79" shows that the money is not there. Page 112 says:
  "The figures in Table 2:12 and elsewhere in this White Paper do not allow for the cost of a child benefit scheme for all children, including the first in each family, to which the Government is committed … Additional expenditure on this scheme would be a charge on the contingency reserve."
  The contingency reserve has been overspent many times by the Government since then. Also, it has become quite clear from the statements which the Chancellor has made in his Budget and
  356
  subsequently that many of the schemes in the White Paper cannot now be implemented because of the need to cut back on public expenditure.
  I suspect that this Bill will not increase the amount of Government assistance going to families with children. It will redistribute it from the husband to the wife. This will be a continuation of the practice that the Chancellor has currently adopted, because he has paid for the increase in family allowance this year by reducing the real value of the child tax allowance.
  The failure to increase child tax allowances nullifies the benefit of the family allowance increase for families both above and below the tax threshold, as shown quite clearly in an article in New Society on 24th April 1975, so that, far from being a new deal for families, it will take money out of the husband's pocket on the Friday and put it into the wife's purse on the following Tuesday. Far from being a child benefit scheme, it looks like being a father dis-benefit scheme. It is up to ladies to educate their husbands to be more generous with the housekeeping, rather than to rely on the Government forcibly to take the money away from their husbands on the Friday in order to give it back to them on the Tuesday. There should be a more enlightened way of achieving these aims in International Womens' Year.
  It is because the financial restriction placed by the Treasury on the DHSS are so strict that there is a total absence of any inflation-proofing in this Bill. The right hon. Lady quite clearly attaches great importance to the concept of inflation-proofing in the fight against poverty, because in the Second Reading of the Social Security Pensions Bill on 18th March this year she said:
  "I need hardly stress the importance to pensioners of having these firm guarantees of full protection against inflation. In the original White Paper I described that protection as 'one of the most precious assets of the new scheme.'"—[Official Report, 18th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1491.]
  She went on to criticise the then provisions for the graduated pension scheme, which were not inflation proofed, by saying that they would be left to shrink in value year by year until effectively they disappeared.

  357
  If that is her view on inflation-proofing, why is there no clause in the Bill obliging the Government to review the level of benefits regularly? It is a clause which we have in the Social Security Benefits Bill and in the Social Security Pensions Bill, which is in Committee at the moment, but which is totally absent from this Bill.
  I see some major problems arising from merging the present tax reliefs with the present family allowances into the new child benefit. I do not think that the Government appreciate that the criteria for eligibility for family allowances are quite different from the criteria for eligibility for tax relief. In general, eligibility for tax relief is much more broadly drawn than eligibility for family allowances, and I am very disturbed to see the much tighter rules for family allowances being reproduced in the Child Benefit Bill, and in some cases made more restrictive, whereas many of us would rather see the much broader rules that guide the tax requirements. This effectively means that many of the benefits currently accruing to families through the tax allowances will be lost.
  I can best illustrate this by reference to the family allowance book. I have managed to borrow it from my wife with great difficulty for the purpose of this debate. May I say to the Under-Secretary that these booklets for a family of four children will shortly be worth £300 each. Perhaps there ought to be second thoughts about security.
  Reading through the conditions at the back of this very valuable booklet, one sees that each order must be cashed within six months, and that failure to do so may result in the loss of rights to the money. There is no such restriction on the tax allowances. On the death of the child, the family allowance book must be returned at once. Tax relief, however, extends for a full year even if the child dies on 6th April.
  There is also reference to the difference in the treatment of children over 16. With family allowances, the moment a child stops attending school, college or university, the book must be returned. Tax relief, on the other hand, extends for the full year, even if a child over 16 ceases attending school during the year. Family allowances are not payable
  358
  if a child goes to live with someone else with a view to adoption, whereas tax allowances are payable until the child is legally adopted by another family. Family allowances are not payable if a child leaves home, apart from prescribed conditions, but the tax allowances continue to be paid even when a child makes prolonged visits to friends or relatives.
  Finally, tax allowances are available for a step child or a child legally adopted who goes into hospital. But where a child is not a natural child, all the family allowances cease after four weeks.
  I suspect that there are other discrepancies which can be dealt with best in Committee. But the criteria are different. The Government have adopted tighter criteria with regard to family allowances in their Bill.
  Turning to the Bill, we see that some of the conditions are even tighter. It appears, for example, from Clause 2 and Schedule 1 that apprentices in full-time training are to be excluded, although currently they are eligible both for family allowances and for tax allowances.
  In Clause 3, the person responsible for a child is defined. It appears that this responsibility has been drawn more tightly than for family allowances. In paragraph 4, it also appears that provision is being made for disqualifying natural children in hospital, although no such provision exists for family allowances. It appears from Clause 7 that child benefits will cease if a child is removed from one's own control by a local authority or otherwise, whereas in some conditions I believe that tax allowances would continue. It is also clear from the Bill that a new child will generate child benefit only from the date from when he is born, whereas tax allowance is available for the whole year.
  There are one or two matters in the Bill which do not seem to me to be clear. If a child over 16 years of age earns more than a prescribed amount, the parent forfeits family allowance. The same is true of the tax allowance. If a child earns or has income above a certain amount, there is a £1 for £1 deduction from the parent's benefit. I cannot find anything in the Bill dealing with the earnings of children and how they are treated in assessing the

  359
  entitlement of parents. Nor is it clear whether the tax allowances which are to be phased out are simply the child allowance, or whether it is also proposed to phase out the additional personal allowance for children which is available to parents living on their own or to married men with totally incapacitated wives.
  On a more positive note, I welcome the provision to graduate benefit according to age. The expenses which parents incur in connection with their children vary as the children grow up. The present system of family allowances does not reflect the increase in expenditure. Looking at the present tax allowances, there are three rates—one for children under 11, one for the 11 to 16 year-olds and one for the over-16s. That graduation is rather coarse and does not reflect the increase in expenditure incurred when children, for example, start attending school at the age of five, bearing in mind that they grow rapidly between the ages of five and 11. I hope that the Government will be able to do some research on this subject before introducing the change. I shall be happy to supply any information of my own to assist this.
  The abolition of the wage-stop has already been referred to by other hon. Members. If the salaries of Members of Parliament remain frozen and the level of benefits goes on increasing, it may be that hon. Members who lose their seats will benefit from the abolition of the wage-stop.
  I want now to refer to what I believe to be an anomaly in Schedule 1(3). It is a small point, but it is one which causes annoyance. It relates to married children, and it says:
  "Except where regulations otherwise provide, no person shall be entitled to child benefit in respect of a child who is married."
  If a daughter gets married, her father is no longer entitled to family allowance for her. On the other hand, if she marries a student and is attending university, her father is expected to maintain her even though she is married. There is a difference of approach between the DHSS and the DES on how parents are meant to look after children after they have married.
  As for the position of the disregards, if this new interim benefit is to be taxable and to be disregarded for supplementary
  360
  benefit purposes, the number of one-parent families who will benefit will be very small.
  I hope that the Minister can give us some information on one-parent families for which we have been pressing him for some time—namely, when the new disregard limits will be introduced which were passed by the House some months ago. The actual date of implementation is left to his Department, which has been silent on the subject for a number of months.
  We have a long way to go. This booklet, "Social Security in the European Community", published by Chatham House and PEP, makes it clear that this country lags far behind other European countries. On page 23, it says:
  "The only continental country with a record of parsimony towards the family to rival that of Britain has been Germany, but this has now changed."
  Some very telling tables in that publication show how stingy we are.
  The Bill may indeed be a milestone, but it is a milestone on which the distance has not yet been inscribed. Until the figures are added, the traveller on this important journey is not much the wiser for seeing it.
  8.51 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: This Bill is an attempt by the Secretary of State to fill the vacuum left behind after her hasty and partisan decision to halt work on the previous Government's tax credit scheme. It is to be welcomed, because at last we have a measure to implement the suggestion made certainly as long ago as 1940 by Lord Keynes in a pamphlet on "How to Pay for the War". For all I know it may have been made many times before that. It seems rather a pity that it should have taken the responsible authorities 35 years to bring forward such an obvious administrative reform.
  There are many questions that one has to ask as to the Secretary of State's policy. After listening to what she said about the tax credit scheme, and recognising that she served on the Select Committee, I do not think that she can ever have understood it. She certainly never understood its possibilities or the attractions that it could have for her party, with its dedication to social reform, or,

  361
  indeed, to anyone interested in administrative reform. One has to ask why the Government are concentrating on the child benefit and forgetting, for instance, the reform of the systems for assistance to the blind and for dependent relatives, who surely also have a claim.
  If we are to discuss the Bill intelligently, we need to know the rate of benefit that the Government have in mind. We know that in comparable democracies, in Belgium, France and Germany for instance, the rates are infinitely more generous and we have a lot of catching up to do. But from a hint within the Bill—namely, that when the benefit is introduced it will not be sufficient to justify ending the tax allowances in their higher ranges, that is to say for the older children—it seems unlikely to constitute a lavish social wage. At a time when we are contemplating increases of £5, £8 or £10 a week for industrial workers already earning far above the national average wage, to discuss whether a child's benefit should be £1:50 or £2 a week shows a total lack of compassion and comprehension.
  This inevitably brings one to the question of the cost. I have some points to raise which I might not be able to elaborate in Committee for fear of being called to order. The first is the question of whether redistribution of income is the same as other branches of Government expenditure. I have in my time tried to get the Treasury to analyse its owns figures so that one could separate the Government's activities in raising and spending money on their own projects, such as defence, and their activities as an impeller of purchasing power from one part of society to another. The money that is drawn through income tax and national insurance contributions goes back again, for the most part, as money, or as spending power, probably to the very same people in many cases who are making the contributions. Therefore, that element in what appears in official figures as Government expenditure is really only personal expenditure assisted by Government intervention.
  There is also another kind of redistribution, which is part of the policy of the Bill, and that is redistribution from husband to wife. I wish we had the data on which to judge the overall effects of
  362
  what we are doing by our schemes for social benefit, in particular by family allowances.
  If the Government chose to introduce family allowance at a generous rate, comparable with that in France, Germany or Belgium, what would the overall effect be on the national picture? Certainly it would bring about a change in the character of expenditure, but it might not change the total level of expenditure. If the books were balanced the income which the Government would draw through one means or another would obviously match the additional income that would go to the families. But the character of national expenditure would certainly change. There would be less spending by men on such things as men are inclined to spend their money on. I would single out the example of gambling—but perhaps that shows my old-fashioned prejudice. However, there would be an increase in spending on the things that mothers long to spend more money on, such as better food, better clothing for their children and other aspects of family comfort and necessary expenditure. I would welcome such a shift, as I am sure would the vast majority of hon. Members. There would also be a change in the level of take-home pay.
  We are dealing with a system which draws money from men, either by cancelling their tax allowances or by changing their overall rate of tax, and hands it to their wives, whose resources are likely to be much smaller. The change in the level of take-home pay may be thought to have side effects in the form of pressure for higher wages and so on. But where incentives are concerned, we need to study the effect on the marginal rate of tax. If family allowances were increased by total cancellation of the child tax allowances, the marginal rate of tax for the average wage earner would probably remain the same. The effect on incentives would be hard to assess.
  I would like to deal briefly with the cost of living, compensation for changes in the cost of living brought about through wages, and the threshold systems of one kind or another. There is no doubt that the concept of the social wage features largely in the Government's thinking in the whole context of the changing cost of living, and that family allowances are part of the social wage.

  363
  I have often tried to draw attention to the deficiencies of the retail price index. No one can be sure what sort of family is referred to in the index, whether it is a family of a husband, wife and two children or some other combination. This makes it difficult to assess the effects of particular changes in the cost of living on families of different sizes.
  However, there is one matter on which we should clarify our minds. The cost of living does not rise by a percentage. We express it in percentage terms, but we should express it in money terms. If a person's expenditure on bread rises because there has been an increase in the price of a loaf, it is unlikely that his increased expenditure will vary substantially whether he is rich or poor. Yet, by expressing the cost of living as a percentage, the suggestion is that the higher-paid are put to the same proportionate additional expense, by a change such as a rise in the price of a loaf, as the lower paid. This is untrue. We should express changes in cost of living as a weekly money sum rather than a percentage. Because we carry on with this obvious sloppy thinking in raising wages to meet rises in the cost of living, in effect we are doing two things. Firstly, we accentuate the differentials between the better-paid and the low-paid, which are probably partly corrected in the tax system but in a blind and random way.
  Secondly, we have the effect of transferring spending power from families to single people. More particularly we transfer resources to the two-earner family without dependants. They are the people who gain most from rises in the cost of living which are compensated by across-the-board wage changes.
  By pursuing these policies over a period of years, we have produced a situation in which it is urgent to raise family allowances to get families back to a reasonable standard of living and self-respect. As the cost of living increases, we should hasten to raise family allowances as a selective weapon to protect living standards.
  Unfortunately, although the right hon. Lady is making the most of the fact that the Government have increased family allowances—and all credit to them
  364
  for that—they did not raise them, even at the time of the announcement, by enough to compensate for the changes in the cost of living since the last increase. Since the announcement, the cost of living has been roaring ahead.
  That brings me to the next question, which is the administration of the reform. It is disheartening to read in the preface to the Bill that apparently there will be no savings to the Inland Revenue. That presumably means that there will be no savings to employers either, who are carrying the burden of pay-as-you-earn without compensation from the State. Pay-as-you-earn, that ridiculously archaic system, is to go on.
  Other hon. Members have asked when the scheme will begin. It is hard to believe that the Government, having, we hope, passed the Bill through Parliament without too much difficulty in the next few weeks, propose then to leave mothers without their benefit until 1977. The ridiculous and unworthy administrative excuses advanced by the right hon. Lady will have to be examined in Committee, where I am sure they will be seen to be inadequate. I do not like to make partisan accusations against honourable colleagues in the House, but the right hon. Lady invites it by her manner. One must ask whether at the back of her mind is the thought that 1977 may be an election year.
  Then the question arises, from the administrative point of view, why not introduce the family allowance on a graduated scale right away? If we are waiting for a computer to handle this scheme, why cannot we programme the computer to introduce graduated family allowances from the start? Then we would be able to sweep away the child tax allowances at once and achieve a worthwhile administrative saving. If the right hon. Lady does not seriously plan to do that, it tells us something very disturbing about the state of the Department's computer programme and possibly about her Department's morale. It also suggests to me that the right hon. Lady has an utter lack of real will to help families in the present emergency.
  I should like to comment on one or two other points of significance in the Bill. I am naturally glad that the Government have recanted and changed their attitude

  365
  to the one-parent families. I read in New Society a suggestion that this was one of the ways in which we could advance. I thought that it would be useful on the Report stage of the Social Security Benefits Bill to have an opportunity to discuss the matter. I hoped that the Government might make a favourable statement which would enable me to withdraw my new clause; but they made it plain that they did not intend then to implement the suggestion. No doubt pressure and remorse have worked on them and have made them decide that possibly the administrative difficulties are not so great after all. Let us hope that they will decide the same about the date of implementation of the increase for the first child in all families, as they now have for the one-parent families.
  One notices the rather chilling reference in the clause dealing with allowances for the one-parent family to the cohabitation rule. I hope that we may have a useful discussion on that in Committee. I hope I may have the honour to be selected to serve on it. I believe that ultimately we shall solve this problem only by introducing householder credits. That will take us a stage further towards the original tax-credit scheme of which the Secretary of State's child endowment is but a pale imitation.
  I welcome Clause 10, which refers to the disclosure of information by the Inland Revenue. I do not know how important this provision may prove in the context of the Bill, but it is most important for the one-parent family that information which the Government machine has should be made available to assist mothers who are unable to claim their due allowances when they have been abandoned by their husbands and left without proper resources in charge of families. The Bill proposes a breach in the long-standing principle. I understood long ago the reasons for the principle; but the time has come to set it aside. I welcome the fact that the Bill makes a beginning.
  I welcome, too, the abolition of the wage-stop. At least this bugbear is being taken out of our social security system. I was amazed when the Secretary of State said that the cost would be only about £100,000, if I understood her correctly. That figure means that the application
  366
  of the wage-stop has already gone out of use, and quite rightly so. Now Parliament will put an end to it once and for all.
  I have often drawn attention to the fact that we do not clarify our minds as to the root of entitlement of social security benefit. Do we give money to people because of their need, because of their record of contributions or because of their citizenship? We still have this hopeless muddle in the administration of social security. I can see that I shall have to follow my rule on this matter of making the same speech 100 times—not stopping at 92 or 98—if I am to get anywhere with the point. The fact that I have mentioned it again tonight takes me a little nearer to the 100 mark.
  The Bill constitutes a positive step forward to a system of citizenship benefits which will eventually serve of itself—I hope—to eliminate need. Therefore, I know that the House will want to give it a warm welcome.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like warmly to welcome the Bill but I am a little surprised, judging from the attendance in the Chamber, that there is so little enthusiasm for it. I hope that that situation will lead to the Bill quickly reaching the statute book.
  The test of how useful the legislation will be is in the level of benefit which will eventually be paid. In many ways this debate is an artificial one because we do not know the level of benefit. I hope that this Bill will not be another example of the way in which the hopes of families living in poverty are raised with the announcement of a benefit by the Government only to be dashed when the actual scale of benefit is revealed. I would hope that when it comes in 1977 the level of benefit will be sufficient to remove the problem of child poverty completely.
  It seems sad that it is 10 years since the extent of this problem was first identified, yet before a worthwhile benefit is brought in many of the children who were first identified as being in need will have grown to adults and may well be back into the cycle of deprivation themselves. It is sad that we have had to wait so long. It is unsatisfactory that administrative problems mean that we must wait

  367
  until 1976–77 for the introduction of the scheme.
  I hope that in sorting out these problems we make certain that the new benefit can be quickly uprated. Nothing upsets people more than to be told that there will be an uprating in, say, six months' time but by the time the increased payment reaches them inflation has eroded a great deal of it. I hope that upratings can be introduced simultaneously with the announcement of increase as happens with VAT increases, for example. I hope, too, that it will be possible for variations according to age to be brought in much more quickly than the couple of years that I understand was the period originally suggested.
  I turn to the section dealing with the interim benefit. This is the excuse for delaying the scheme. Interim benefit will be given to one-parent families. The rate will be £1·50, which I believe is one-sixth of the amount suggested in the Finer Report, which was produced over two years ago. As the Government are taking the trouble to identify one-parent families—everyone is aware of the problems involved—it seems to me that the level of benefit for them could be higher than £1·50. Since we suggest that the families in most need should be helped, the rate could be a little more generous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) referred to her pleasure at the disappearance of the wage-stop clause, but was concerned because the cohabitation rule remained. Not only does it remain but it is to be used again in assessing the interim benefit. After all the evidence as to the way in which this rule acts unfairly, it is a shame that a further piece of legislation should rely on that rule to distribute the interim benefit. I hope that the Government will look again at that provision.
  A small part deals with children in the care of the local authorities. It is reasonable that no benefit should be paid to parents of children being looked after by a local authority. However, I wonder whether the Department has looked at the question whether that benefit should be paid to foster parents where children have been boarded out by local authorities. Fostering allowances vary widely.
  368
  Some authorities are extremely mean. If the child benefit could be paid to the foster parents it would greatly help many foster parents.
  Stress has been laid on the problem of the fragmentation of existing benefits. A great deal was heard from the Opposition Front Bench about that matter. The only way to abolish fragmented benefits is to place the level of child benefits high enough. Some fragmented benefits cost a great deal to administer and have extremely low take-up rates. I suggest that the level should be fixed sufficiently high so that many of those benefits can be phased out.
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that when it is implemented the level of benefit will be generous so as to remove child poverty once and for all from this country.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I can understand why the Chamber has been empty throughout the debate. There have been only two Government back-bench speakers. The Bill is a non-event. It does nothing to help poverty now. It offers jam tomorrow.
  In an aura of self-justification, the Secretary of State, when she introduced the Bill, endeavoured to show up the Conservative tax credit scheme as expensive and ill-designed to suit the needs of today. Her remarks were the most hypocritical that I have heard for a long time. She has in fact introduced a pinchbeck idea of part of our tax credit scheme.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): Will the hon. Gentleman say how he is in a position to criticise the scheme, since the level of benefit has not yet been fixed?
  Mr. Boscawen: That is just the point which we complain about. We know nothing about what the benefit will be. We do not know what it is. Will it be a neutral benefit? Will it mean no more than is being given out at present in family allowances and tax relief? We have had very little explanation.
  The Secretary of State said that our tax credit scheme was impossibly expensive, and that was why she objected to it. She later said that her scheme would be potentially expensive. She hedged

  369
  around with "ifs" and "buts" as to exactly how it would be paid for. She did herself less than justice and was not on her best form.
  Of course we are pleased that the Government are doing, albeit in two years' time, what Parliament has long wanted to do, namely, giving a benefit to the first child. But this is about the most unpropitious moment the right hon. Lady could have chosen to introduce the Bill, in the present disastrous economic climate. I give the Government one crumb of comfort. At the time of the Second Reading debate of the original Family Allowances Bill there was also a grim crisis. The debate took place early in 1945 when some of us thought we were almost with our backs to the wall. Those family allowances have lasted and served the country well for 30 years, although there have been recognised gaps in the system. The major gap was, of course, the absence of a family allowance for the first child.
  I have always wondered whether the reason for not giving the family allowance for the first child was Beveridge's philosophy that a man's wages should be enough to support himself, his wife and one child. I have read the original report of the debate carefully and I do not think that was the reason. The reason was that which exists today—that the Treasury was not prepared to find sufficient money.
  The Solicitor-General who wound up the debate in March 1945 said that there were 3 million one-child families and 2·6 million families with two children or more. Therefore, there were 5·6 million first children within the 10 million children in the country. He said that, by simple arithmetic, it was clear that it would cost £73 million to pay 5s. a week to the children who were not first children but would cost £130 million to pay it to the first child as well as to the others. That shows the old hand of the Treasury at work. The Government thought that if they cut out the allowance for the first child the cost would be halved.
  That allowance for the first child should have been introduced a long time ago, and the reasons for it are even more pressing today. Married couples nearly always both go out to work today before their first child arrives, so that when
  370
  the first child comes along the family income drops considerably. That is when the need is greatest.
  I turn to the implementation of part of the Finer Report's recommendations, that of introducing family allowances for one-parent families next year. Why did not the Government accept the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in Committee on the Social Security Benefits Bill on 29th January? Had they done so, it might have been possible for the allowance to be brought in at the beginning of this month. I do not accept the palaver about the difficulties of identifying the single-parent families.
  As the hon. Lady the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) said, where there is a political will the problem can be solved. For example, when petrol rationing is introduced the coupons are issued to everybody in a remarkably short time. I believe that if the political will had existed to bring family allowance to lone-parent families at the beginning of April, it could have been done. Indeed, it should have been done.
  I am disappointed that we are still lagging very far behind in implementing the main proposal in the Finer Report. I accept that the major proposal for a guaranteed maintenance allowance for those families was means-tested and, therefore, out of tune with the thinking of everyone on both sides of the House, but it was not beyond the ability of the Government to think out a different way of helping single-parent families. Theirs is the greatest need. Theirs is the largest single body of easily identifiable families who are in poverty. That is where the shoe pinches most. By pre-empting the nation's resources in so many other ways, the Government are putting off the day when they can help the lone-parent families.
  When the family allowance for the children of lone-parent families comes in next year, it will be seven years since the public fuss and row took place which caused Richard Crossman to take action and to initiate the Finer Report. Of course, the production of the report took too long. The best is often the enemy of the good. In this case the result is such that far too long a time will have

  371
  passed before anything has emerged to help these very needy people. Of course, by no means the whole body of the report can be implemented at once.
  But this situation shows up clearly the inefficiency of Parliament. I hope that the Government take this to heart and consider again what they can do to replace the guaranteed maintenance allowance that was proposed in the Finer Report. I hope that they will introduce some provision as early as possible.
  Lastly, I return to the main theme of the Bill—namely, the benefit for the first child. It does not seem from what the right hon. Lady said that the benefit will do much to help overcome wage-push inflation. Will it help those who are demanding higher wages in order to keep up with inflation to find that their income is being transferred from the husband to the wife, as appeared to be the case from what the right hon. Lady said this evening? Will the families themselves in total be better off? Is it only a transfer of resources in that what is now paid in tax relief to the father will be paid in child benefit direct to the mother?
  Will there be any new money coming into the scheme, or is it based on what the Treasury call revenue neutrality or some such bureaucratic expression? Is it to be on that basis that the scheme is being introduced? Let us have some more information about that. There would have been more interest on the Government benches and on the Opposition benches if we had thought that the scheme would do something to bring more cash into the hands of the very needy families on low wages, and particularly those who are on supplementary benefit.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I sometimes think that we could save this establishment a great deal of money if we held debates on social services in one of the Committee rooms. It would reduce the amount of light and heat required. Indeed, we would look rather cosier if we sat somewhat nearer to each other than is the situation here with the few hon. Members who seem to be interested in this general subject.
  In my short political career I have noted a great deal of opposition to the
  372
  whole idea of family allowances. I think that most hon. Members must have experienced that feeling at one time or another. There is without doubt a substantial body of public opinion against large families. Indeed, I should have to give that sentiment substantial support. But the suggestion that people increase the size of their families to rake in the benefits of the family allowance is one of the funniest arguments that I have heard advanced at any meeting I have attended.
  We do not know what the benefits will be, but, as they are now, the rest of Europe has substantially greater benefits than we have. There is little sign that in European countries the increased family allowance greatly increases the size of families.
  The real point about the Bill, as has been mentioned several times, is that for the first time for a very long time we have an attempt at tackling poverty within the family. The Liberal Party has long argued that this is the easiest and most effective way to do something about the problem.
  We are delighted that in future the first child will have an allowance. I suppose that I should declare an interest, being the father of a two-year-old son. But I know from my friends and my own experience that the first child, when the wife stops working, is probably the biggest shift in a family's financial position that is experienced for many years. It is probably the biggest shift in one's financial position until the great day one retires when instead of bringing home the normal wage, one is on pension. Therefore, the first child allowance will do something to help in that area.
  The Liberal Party is more than disappointed to hear that it is impossible to bring this allowance in before 1977. I think that alumina cement has become one of the most useful excuses that Governments of this country have ever had. I have heard it blamed for three things that we have not done in recent months. I understand now that alumina cement has stopped us paying out the allowance for the first child before 1977.
  Some of the criticism that has come from this side of the House about the Government not bringing in this allowance until 1977 has raised a wry smile on my

  373
  face. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has left the Chamber, said that the Government will have taken three years and four months to implement this idea, and therefore, the fact that the Conservatives took three years and eight months not to implement it made the Conservative Government's record as good as the Labour Government's record. The difference is that at least in the three years and four months than this Government have taken they will have brought it in. Therefore, some credit is due to them, at least from the Liberal Party if from nowhere else in this Chamber.
  I suggest that there should be a regular review of the benefit. We went from 1970 to 1974 without any change being made in the family allowance provision.
  The Child Poverty Action Group has circulated a memorandum—no doubt most hon. Members have received it—asking that the family allowance should be reviewed at six-monthly intervals. I suppose it is a tragic sign of the times that people talk about reviewing benefits at six-monthly intervals. I should prefer the Government of the day to take effective action to stop the inflation which is rotting our society than to review the child benefit at six-monthly intervals. But if the Government will not take action to curb inflation, the Liberal Party must support the idea, sad though it is, of regular reviews to keep the benefit up to date.
  It is difficult to make specific comments about the Bill because no figures are attached, but it recognises that as a child gets older he gets somewhat more expensive to keep. As I said, it is difficult to make any comment one way or the other until the figures are before us, but it is at least recognised that as a child gets older the benefit will increase. That is appreciated.
  The great thing that the Bill has done is to reduce one of the anomalies that has long annoyed me because I represent one of the poor areas of this country. Sometimes when a Budget is presented the Minister of the day raises the tax allowance. The headline in the newspapers the next day is, "£60 a year for all families in Britain". I know that in my part of the country only too often the people who most need this extra money
  374
  pay no income tax and, therefore, the allowance does not go to them at all. Obviously, this piece of legislation will stop that.
  What disappoints me is that it will produce another anomaly. The idea of making the benefit tax free sounds seductive, but it means that in real terms and in terms of extra income to a family it will benefit the richer, higher taxpayer much more than the lower taxpayer. If this benefit were taxed, could the Government say by how much they increase the benefit? It would be interesting to know by how much the benefit would increase the income of people who at present do not pay any tax if it were taxed and therefore the money recouped to the Government were redistributed back through the same scheme. The Government say that they want to attack poverty. I should like to know the answer to this question because these are the people about whom I am disturbed and, from what other hon. Members have said, they, too, are concerned about them.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has said that the case would be stronger at the moment if the Government could do something about the level of tax thresholds. At present families with very modest incomes indeed are paying tax. Therefore, what he is proposing would hit the extra 1 million poor people who are paying tax this year even harder, compared with last year, as a result of the Chancellor's Budget.
  Mr. Penhaligon: What I am proposing could not possibly hit anyone harder. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that it certainly would not help as many people as it might have helped a few years ago when the income tax thresholds were rather more realistic. To that extent we could say that inflation has removed the problem, but it has certainly removed it in a very cruel way and not a way about which my party is very enthusiastic.
  The fact that the abolition of the wage-stop has been slipped into the Bill is to be welcomed. I should like to put on record the Liberal Party's great excitement—perhaps that is too strong a word—our great delight that this ludicrous little rule has at long last been deposited in the right wastepaper bin.

  375
  It has been said that apparently this special allowance will be given to the first child of single-parent families and will be counted against supplementary benefits. It is my experience in my constituency—and I rather suspect that all hon. Members have met people in this category—that if this is so and if the clawback is 100 per cent., the people whom I thought we would be helping most will now be missed out. I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to explain in more detail what the percentage clawback will be or, if it is 100 per cent., perhaps he will rethink it and do something to help those in this category.
  This is a good day for this House. It is a day when a reform has been put before us which is much needed and much welcomed. I am pleased to say that basically the Liberal Party supports the Government in what they are doing.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: Most right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate—I am disappointed that few people have been present—have spoken in terms of the Bill against the background of eradication of poverty.
  The Scottish National Party welcomes any move that will eradicate poverty. Only last year we launched a very imaginative policy called "The War on Poverty in Scotland". We drew attention to the fact that 1 million people in Scotland lived on or near the poverty line. Our political opponents pooh-poohed this idea and dismissed it as sensationalism. Yet only recently we have had every statistic that we produced on poverty in Scotland vindicated in reports from sociologists and, indeed, from Government Departments. Most recently the Department of the Environment, in its census "Indicators of Urban Poverty", showed that 115 of the 120 worst areas in the United Kingdom in terms of multiple deprivation were in Clydeside, Scotland.
  It is against that background that we welcome the principle of the Bill as it has been put before us today. We agree wholeheartedly with the principle of the benefit on the birth of a first child. This has been part of our election manifestos
  376
  throughout the past years. Therefore, we can do nothing but welcome it. I do not need to remind the House of the problems of expense when the first child is born. However, I want to remind hon. Members that it is not merely that the wife stops employment but that the whole tax allowance available to a woman is lost in that situation.
  We also approve of the principle that this payment should replace tax relief, because this means that more people will escape the poverty trap and that people with the lowest incomes should benefit from this situation We would welcome frequent reviews of the situation and, perhaps, an index related to the cost of living. However, we realise the problems involved in this matter. We hope that the Committee will examine it in greet detail.
  We congratulate the Government on finally recognising the needs of one-parent families. I can only repeat, however, our disappointment as expressed in a motion on the Order Paper that this payment will not be made at an earlier date and will not be a larger sum. Given the decline in the purchasing power of the pound, £1·50 will be virtually meaningless in early 1977.
  On the general question of the amount of the child benefit, I hope that when we get round to discussing the amount the Government will produce something much more realistic and perhaps something that will bring us into line with the rest of Europe. Unlike the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), I do not believe that we need to remain in Europe to come into line in this respect, but that is a matter for another debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has consistently questioned the Department responsible and asked whether it can produce monetary comparisons of family allowances paid in the United Kingdom with those paid in other EEC countries. Consistently the reply has been that it is impossible to produce such statistics. This interest on the part of my hon. Friend was noticed by certain groups, which sent us their individual calculations. In every comparison the United Kingdom showed up very badly.

  377
  Taking this on an annual basis, for two children under the age of five the United Kingdom paid out £46·80 in family allowances, Belgium paid £418·04, Holland paid £271·33 and Eire, which is the closest comparison managed, paid £67·20. I should like the Department to comment on those figures. I am very willing to send a copy of the statistics to the Department for its comments and for other comparisons.
  Will the Minister indicate whether the Government intend to abolish the earnings rule as applicable to one-parent families? I realise that there has been the promise that the amount that a one-parent family may earn before the supplementary benefit is deducted is to be doubled at some point in the future. Will the Minister indicate when this will be and whether the supplementary benefit will be deductible against the child benefit allowance to one-parent families?
  In general, the Scottish National Party welcomes all these attempts to eradicate poverty among children, or at least to make progress towards that end. Scotland has had more than her share of socially disadvantaged children. I should like to draw the attention of the House yet again to the report "Born to Fail" published in 1973 by the National Children's Bureau. I make no apology for mentioning it again because all those who claim to be interested in the welfare of our children should have the words of this report carved on their hearts.
  The report stated:
  "One child in 16 was the proportion of disadvantaged among all children in Britain"—
  that statistic, in itself, is appalling—
  "but in individual regions the prevalence varied. In Southern England there was only one in 47 children. In Wales and Northern England, on the other hand, there was one in every 12. But the most disturbing proportion was found in Scotland where one in every 10 children was disadvantaged. Eleven per cent. of the 11-year-old British children lived in Scotland, but 19 per cent. of disadvantaged children were found there."
  It is against this background that we welcome the Government's moves, and it is this particular aspect of the Bill that I am particularly interested in.
  The SNP also welcomes the abolition of the wage-stop. The Child Poverty Action Group stated in 1972, following some extensive
  378
  research on the operation of the wage-stop that
  "There was evidence of considerable financial hardship and in most cases very real deprivation. This is only to be expected, since the families were having to manage on a sum of money officially defined as inadequate to meet their basic needs."
  I accept that the numbers of people coming into the wage-stop category have fallen quite substantially owing to the administration of the family income supplement and rent rebate and allowance schemes. However, it is true to say that we all welcome and approve the abolition of this most detested part of the whole supplementary benefit scheme, but I am very disappointed that it has not been extended to the cohabitation rule, which is undoubtedly unjustifiable in the circumstances.
  On the whole, however, we welcome the principle of this Bill and hope that when the Committee meets it will get down to the administrative details of the matters involved and make this a very meaningful law on the statute book.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It must be understood by the Front Bench that any criticism at this stage of this proposal in the Bill is intended to be constructive. If it appears to be a little heavy because of the lack of information in the Bill, that is only in order to use the time which is now available between the processing of the Bill through Parliament and the dates when the orders in council are issued to take heed of certain warnings.
  At the end of the day it will not be very useful to those who are in receipt of family allowances or of social security benefits for their families now, or indeed for one-parent families who come within the interim period, if the statutory instruments brought before the House produce nothing different in terms of financial improvement compared with the situation today as far as the purchasing power of the money they get is concerned.
  If that should happen, two things would become obvious to the recipients of these benefits. First, they would see that we are just using another name for the same thing. Secondly, they would draw the conclusion that the operation of Clause 17—and this does not appear generally in

  379
  publicity and will not appear in future, because it is past experience—will mean that the gains they have had in terms of social security benefits will be reduced by the amount of benefit they receive for the first child.
  We have to accept in the House that the people who are receiving benefits are not lawyers and are not necessarily professional people, who, as a matter of fact, can live without the benefits at all. The people receiving them are ordinary people with problems which are proportionately higher, in terms of income to meet their cost of living, than those of the affluent sections of the community. If they are getting money now, or between now and 1976, which is the interim period, or between 1976 and 1977, which is the period for putting into effect the whole of the scheme, and they are still no better off, they will inevitably draw the conclusion that Parliament once again has used another name for the same sort of thing.
  It is no use getting rid of family allowances and introducing child benefits if in terms of what people receive the situation is no different.
  Why has the Bill been introduced at this point when the country is anxious hear about another subject, namely the economic crisis? Why bring in a Bill like this now when it will not get news coverage, so that those who are directly concerned will not feel the full impact of the Government's good intentions? I do not prejudge those intentions. I merely warn. The Bill need not have been introduced now. There is no one in the House or in the Department who knows what the benefits will be. There is no possibility of evaluating the Bill. We cannot say with certainty, once the Bill leaves us, what validity the benefits will have by the time we come to deal with the statutory instruments. Major changes may be required because of changing circumstances.
  Mr. Alec Jones: Surely one-parent families will know, as a matter of fact, that from next April they will receive £1·50 a week which they are not receiving now. That has nothing to do with any long-term plan.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I would remind my hon. Friend that that is not the position.
  380
  Such families may well know that in 1976 they will get the interim award of £1·50. I would call it a derisory award. I do not think that that would get me by taxi to King's Cross and back. We ought not to shout too loud about £1·50. If my hon. Friend says that these people will know what they will receive in 1976, there are three consequences flowing from that. The first is that the purchasing power of that money will not be the same next year as it is today. Second, the value of the money will have been eroded before they get it. Third, if such people are receiving supplementary allowances, Clause 17 says that what they are to get will be reduced accordingly so that they will in fact get little more.
  We could tell the country that the Government intend to pay the one-parent families by April 1976 or thereabouts—because the date is not specified—simply by making a public statement to that effect. That is quite different from producing a Bill which might have to be altered. This is perhaps why the House is so empty. May be this is one of the reasons why hon. Members with some experience can see that this measure may well have to be re-examined in the context of the economic conditions of 1976. If £1·50 is simply the amount of money that will take me to King's Cross and back by taxi, it will not bring great wealth to one-parent families.
  I see in the Explanatory Memorandum that this will cost only £21 million. Is Great Britain so poor that she cannot pay that now? That is a pertinent question. That is exactly the amount of money we spent on food subsidies to keep Hovis and other companies happy to hold down their prices for a very short period. We gave to the shareholders of the bread producers £21 million for a very short-term holding of prices. So are we saying that we cannot afford to give one-parent families the £1·50 now at a similar total cost?
  If we want to have our priorities right at a time of economic crisis when we have not yet got control of inflation, I should have thought that my party above all parties would have said that the major priority here is to protect the families in the most vulnerable section of the community, the poverty area. It is a priority now. I should not have thought

  381
  that it needed a Bill. It could have been done.
  This is a pertinent criticism which the Department may well not like, but I recall a great Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security, who was then responsible for pensions, trying to urge upon the House and upon the Labour Party not so many years ago the need to pay a pension in a short period of time because the urgency was there. It was real, and everybody recognised it. But the Department advised the Minister that it could not be done. Subsequently the pressure of public opinion, to which the House of Commons responded, made it possible to implement the payment of the pension in double-quick time, when the will was known to be there. Similarly here, if there is an urgent need to deal with this very special area of one-parent families—and my party has made some play on it—do we have to take 12 months? Do we need a Minister to come here with a Bill which says quite clearly and distinctly that the soonest it is expected that this can be paid is April 1976? What sort of expectation is that? What am I to say to my constituents during the coming months, with the pressures of inflation putting up prices to a greater extent than the £1·50? Am I to say, "Wait until next April for it"? Am I to say that it is "expected" to happen in April but that it is not a firm promise? Am I to say that they may get the £1·50 then, remembering that it is being eroded all the time, even while I am talking to them? That is not the kind of situation that brings credit to my party. I say this in the House of Commons deliberately.
  Coming to the matter of family benefits, again to be expected a year after that for the one-parent child, it is to be observed that we cannot find out in any way from any official, what is to happen. The fact is that they do not appear to know the value of these benefits. If they know and are not telling us, that is wrong. They cannot have it both ways.
  We know one thing for certain. We know that the cost of implementing the scheme is to be £10·5 million a year and that there will be an additional sum of £6 million involved in its immediate
  382
  implementation. We also know that we shall have to employ 3,500 additional civil servants on the scheme. We know that part, but we do not know the amounts involved. We know exactly the number of civil servants needed to implement a scheme about which we know nothing.
  My colleagues on the Treasury Bench may say that their hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool is making a much more critical examination of the Bill than some more kindly members of the Opposition. But it is right that that should be so. It is my party which is introducing it. This is what the Labour Party manifesto said. We gave our word that it would be done. As a Member of Parliament, however, I do not like to be told about implementing a scheme the cost of which has not been evaluated. I cannot go to my constituents to tell them exactly what they are to get. What is more, I cannot say exactly what they are not to get.
  For more than a decade, we have been talking in this House about simplifying our taxation system. Here we have a situation where we are to pay out a disgraceful pittance and the people who will be paid far more for administering the scheme will be tearing out their hair wondering how to cope with the complications of tax regulating and how they are to measure out the clawback.
  It is a fanciful notion in a modern society to say that we intend to give this so-called child benefit but that we intend to claw back some of it, bearing in mind that we have no conception of the criticism which will be made of us when we receive irate people who have had great expectations from our manifesto promises.
  I have dealt with Clause 17. If no one else is prepared to say it, I must repeat that the clause says clearly that the people who will be getting £1·50 will also be subject to a provision in the Bill which says that it will be given with one hand and taken away with the other. That is what will happen. It happens all the time. It is not just a Labour Government who are doing it. All Governments have done it. However, in practice, Members of Parliament have to try to explain this anomaly to their constituents, because it has never made sense to ordinary people.

  383
  I wish to make only one final point. I want to leave my colleagues on the Treasury Bench with some feeling that all their work has been worth while. My comment relates to Clause 18. The Government have decided to abolish the wage-stop, which is a welcome move. But again I ask why it cannot be done now. Why cannot the Government say to the Social Security Commission, "We want this abolished immediately"? It is based on a man's normal work, but the great shake-out in industry means that a man's normal work will cease to be his normal work. While he is awaiting his retraining—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Child Benefit Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Pavitt]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The Bill is welcome, but it falls short because it does not deal urgently with an urgent problem. It ends the wage-stop, a step which is welcome and overdue. The Department has done a first-class job in making its intentions known, but I hope that during the coming year, as we approach the interim payment for one-parent families, followed in a subsequent year by the implementation of the scheme, the dates will be reviewed. I hope that the Government will take account of the criticism that this benefit should not be just a new name for an old idea. It must transform poverty and bring a sense of justice to the needy in a fast-moving society, who depend 100 per cent. on the common sense of this House bringing the reality of our manifesto to bear on the Government's good intentions.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Like almost every other speaker, I express a welcome for the Bill, but after the scathing attack upon it by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), I cannot be accused of unfairness if I say that our welcome is particularly qualified.
  What is being welcomed is the structure in the Bill which will give future Governments the opportunity to begin to develop the kind of child benefit and family endowment scheme that we all want. As many hon. Members have said, the structure at the moment is an empty shell. We do not know whether the Government will put their money—or rather, our money—where their intentions are professed to be in the Bill. We do not know the level of benefits or what the reality will be when the Scheme is introduced.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked a pertinent question—why is the Bill being introduced now? I can offer one explanation—that this Government are rapidly acquiring a deplorable record over family poverty, which is getting steadily worse day by day in the middle of the present crisis, so they have produced a Bill full of good intentions for the future. Those good intentions should not be allowed to be a fig leaf for the fact that they are presiding over a great increase in family poverty.
  The structure proposed by the Bill is one on which we are all agreed, because it has an impeccable all-party parentage. It is taken almost completely from the Tory tax credits scheme debated in the last Parliament. It is a desirable feature of that scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, we regret that the Secretary of State's opposition—presumably her personal opposition, since she was alone in her attitude on the Select Committee which considered the scheme—prevents us from going further.
  There is no reason why similar enabling legislation should not be brought in to put into effect the outline of a tax credits scheme. We accept that in such legislation the actual figures would have to be worked out later as in this Bill, as one discovered what the resources would
  386
  allow the Government to do in a time of crisis.
  Meanwhile, the structure is this desirable amalgamation of family allowances and tax allowances. It has the desirable effect of extending the payments made direct to mothers to cover the eldest child. We have always been committed to this. When we were in Government we were committed to introducing this payment for the eldest child and paying it direct to the mother.
  The Labour Party has been committed to it as well, and has made it part of the social contract, which might well have doomed it to oblivion along with most other parts of that illusory document. Fortunately, it is the one part which seems to have survived.
  We are producing a worthwhile structure which will enable us to fill an important gap in the system. The worst gap in our system of family provision has always been that the eldest child was not covered. Almost half of all children are the eldest child or the only child. As the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) reminded the House, in nearly everyone's experience the most expensive child for any household is the first child. There is no need to emphasise that point.
  Having welcomed the structure and said how glad we shall be to see it get on the statute book, we must turn to the questions posed by the Bill which have been referred to by all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. Those questions are the amounts we shall see in the end, the timing and meanwhile the delay that we are experiencing before the scheme is brought into operation.
  The Bill has to be seen against the background of mounting family poverty. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to take great credit for the good intentions contained in the Bill. I could almost accuse her of speaking in sanctimonious terms, in heart on sleeve fashion, about her great concern for family poverty and how glad she is to bring forward this legislation.
  When one looks at what the Government are doing rather than what they are saying, it is apparent that the failure of the social contract and Government policy on inflation are hitting the poor

  387
  in particular. The social services are not protecting the poor. The Chancellor in his speeches is now beginning to talk about the threat to the social wage, which is obviously worrying members of his own party and indeed those interested in public life everywhere.
  In many ways the social wage, in real terms, is already being hit by Government measures. The Government recently increased the family allowance. I give the right hon. Lady credit for that, although it does not take it back to the real value it had in 1968. Before she bounces up to say that we did not raise it at all, I must point out that we introduced the family incomes supplement, which is the most important provision one-parent families have. It is used most by them. One-parent families in work find that it is probably their best safeguard at the moment against real poverty.
  Unfortunately, alongside the increase in the family allowances one has to look at the Chancellor's failure to raise tax thresholds, which has hit many families—not only those of modest means but those who are poor. In this Budget, at a time of raging inflation, no increase has been made in the child tax allowances. I trust that that has not been done to keep down the cost of introducing this measure when we get to 1977.
  As a result of the Chancellor's activities, a million more people are now paying tax than when the Labour Government came into office. The people most badly affected are large families with low earnings. The Child Poverty Action Group, which many hon. Members have quoted, has done extremely valuable work. I trust that it would do as good a hatchet job on a Conservative Government's record if we blundered into the same mistakes. It has done valuable work in relating the increased earnings which people have had to have in the terms of the social contract, or in order to keep pace with prices and earnings over the past year, as well as the increased family allowances, to the increased level of tax which all poor families are paying. It has shown clearly that the real living standards of low-earning, large families, have dropped and are still dropping.
  388
  I quote one table from Mr. Frank Field's Child Poverty Action Group memorandum showing the net income changes of a two-parent family earning £25 a week in April 1974. If such a low-income family's average income had risen in line with average earnings it should now be £33 a week. But the effect of the increase in family allowance and the increased tax that such a family is paying is that if it has one child it is £228 a week worse off; with two children it is £1·83 worse off; and with three children it is 93p worse off. That is the valid background against which to judge the Government's lack of figures in the Bill and the fact that we are to wait until 1977 before the Bill will mean anything.
  Let us look at what the Bill does, and how it will affect poverty and whom it will help. First, I welcome the abolition of the wage-stop, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) also warmly welcomed. The time has arrived to abolish this rule. When we were in office, as a result of our family income supplement scheme and the rent rebate and allowances resulting from the Housing Finance Act, the number of people affected by the wage-stop dropped dramatically. I am glad to hear that only 5,000 people are now affected and that the wage-stop will soon be removed.
  There are those who fear that the abolition of the wage-stop will take away a precaution which prevents people being better off in benefit than they would be in work. But it is an extremely ineffective and unfair precaution. It has dwindled to a point where it is not worth pursuing for the 5,000 largely low-wage-earning families with numerous children badly affected by it.
  For the rest, we must start looking at the amounts, which cannot be specified in the Bill, because the Secretary of State is waiting until she sees what resources she has in 1977. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's warning words, that is very wise. One cannot help saying that her difficulty is that so much was done for pensioners in the uprating last year, and so much is proposed for them in the future, that the Government no doubt have restricted

  389
  financial resources for other worthwhile social services improvements.
  Family allowances, at £1·50, have not gone to the 1968 level in real terms. The Secretary of State estimates that if the Bill is to have neutral cost in 1977, £1·94 is the break-even point. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that nobody will be worse off in 1977 than he is now, and a benefit of that level implies a child benefit of more than £2 a week. Perhaps the Under-Secretary has some idea what figure it is.
  If the hon. Gentleman says that we are being too suspicious about the amounts, that we are suspicious that the Government are professing noble intentions to get over their lack of action now, I remind him of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, that the White Paper on Government expenditure makes no provision for increased expenditure in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) also pointed this out.
  Therefore, we need an assurance that no one will be worse off. We also need as soon as possible an indication of where the Government think that they will get public money from if the payment is to be anything other than a purely neutral transfer from the husband to the wife, from tax allowances to family allowances.
  Meanwhile, whatever the amounts, one point that will have to be considered in Committee is why the child credit system should not be made subject to the annual review. Neither party has ever been able to accede to the pressure in Committees to include family allowances in the annual review. Years and years have gone by, including years when a Conservative Government were in power, in which the family allowance has been steadily eroded. We still have not returned to the real level of seven years ago. Now that we are amalgamating tax allowances with family allowances, it is difficult to justify a situation in which these new child benefits will be kept out of the annual review procedure. I should be interested to hear what arguments the Government will produce at an appropriate stage to try to resist inclusion in the annual review procedure so that whatever figure is chosen at least keeps in line with inflation thereafter.
  390
  But in the light of what I have said, particularly about what is happening now in respect of family poverty, the acceptance by the Government of April 1977 as a suitable time for introducing the new scheme is almost disgraceful. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield explained, and it was not denied, that April 1976 was implied and accepted by the Secretary of State only a few months ago. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, including the hon. Members for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett)—and I do not take party advantage of their reasoned speeches—has expressed disappointment at the April 1977 date.
  We find ourselves bogged down in almost ludicrous argument about high alumina cement, in Washington New Town, County Durham. In all the arguments we have had in pressing the Secretary of State for statements about the timing of the new scheme, it is remarkable how in deus ex machina fashion, high alumina cement has suddenly arrived to provide the Government with, much to their expressed regret, a quite practicable excuse for not being able to introduce the new benefit before 1977.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State repeated several times that it is impossible to introduce it before that date without mentioning the other problems that were authoritatively reported in New Society and The Guardian, amongst other journals, only a few months ago. In Cabinet Committee, in particular in the so-called anti-poverty group that the Government have apparently established, there have been great battles between the Secretary of State and her colleagues, particularly her Treasury colleages. The result was, and we believe that this lies behind the delay and the Government's marked lack of enthusiasm in searching for office accommodation, that the Secretary of State was refused the resources by her Treasury colleagues to implement the scheme before 1977.
  I suspect that there is very little agreement between her and the Treasury about what this scheme may mean and that this is the principal reason why no benefit level is stated for 1977—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but I will hear what the Under-Secretary says about the position within the Government. I

  391
  cannot believe that if resources were available, if the party were prepared to honour its election commitment, and if the Treasury and the Secretary of State were agreed, they would still have been unable to include figures in the Bill and that we would be told that high alumina cement at Washington New Town has prevented the scheme from going ahead.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has not been very forthcoming in reply to parliamentary Questions about this great office block at Washington. He will not produce any architects' reports for the House to examine, although he told me on 12th May in a Written Answer that the delay caused to completion of the block was likely to be "about 12 months". To be told that it might be "about 12 months" implies that it might be more. If the delay is longer, will the scheme be pushed back beyond April 1977? Are the Government trying to tell us that there are no other office blocks within reasonable range of the highly skilled people in County Durham who, it seems, are so indispensable to the Government? Are they saying that with the best will in the world the Government and the House of Commons united cannot find an answer before April 1977?
  The example of Germany has been quoted in respect of getting new benefits quickly into effect. The Secretary of State explained how she found on her visit that the German experience was quite unsuitable for this country, and she has tried to explain that to the House before. However, her defence and explanation of that view seems to many of us to show how utterly wedded the Secretary of State is to the old-fashioned features of our social security scheme, so that when she sees a modern scheme being applied in an up-to-date industrial country she believes that it cannot be done in the dear old United Kingdom.
  She has made particular reference to how in Germany payment is made monthly or even quarterly, and how utterly unacceptable this is in the United Kingdom with our once-a-week payments. In my opinion the day will come, if we are ever to modernise our social security system, when we shall have to start thinking about abandoning the payment of the once-a-week benefit, with the little lady
  392
  going to the post office on a Tuesday to collect her money as an indispensable feature of the system. If we are to begin to approach the level of administrative efficiency and, hence, effectiveness in social terms, of the much better Western European systems of social provision, these are the terms in which we must begin to think.
  Mrs. Castle: Desirable as these long-term objectives may be, is not the hon. Gentleman contradicting his own earlier demands for urgency? Secondly, does he think that it would be possible in this country in the near future to introduce payment by cheque, as in Germany?
  Mr. Clarke: As regards urgency, the Germans were able to pay family allowances for the first child within six months. On the second point, of course benefit cannot be paid by cheque now. The Secretary of State implies that that is and ought to be the situation and that there should be no attempt at progress or to try to explain to the public that the fact that we have not accepted the use of the banking system of cheque payments is a serious limitation. That applies to many areas as well as to social services provision.
  The Government mention delay, which we find inexcusable. I do not say that the Opposition disbelieve their comments. There is a problem at the Washington office block in County Durham. We believe that with the political will and some real urgency in the matter, payments under the scheme could be made by 1977.
  I shall deal with the interim benefit for one-parent families. I shall not tease the Government—that was done effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)—with the fact that they voted against this recommendation on 29th January 1975 yet have now brought it forward for adoption. The Government have adopted this measure as a sop because of their failure to introduce the main scheme for everyone by April 1976 as they originally intended. The interim scheme is open to serious disadvantages. Although we shall not oppose its introduction in 1976, we are relieved that the proposal will stand as an interim measure for one year only.

  393
  The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield pointed out that the fact that supplementary benefit would not be disregarded meant that the scheme would be of no assistance to the poorest families, those one-parent families, about whom we are most concerned and who are the cause of the urgency. Anyone who receives more than £1·50 in supplementary benefit now will not be one penny better off. It is only the one-parent families not receiving that level of supplementary benefit who will enjoy an advantaged position.
  I accept the point that there is some difficulty in disregarding every new benefit for supplementary benefit, but for one year there can be no great objection in principle to disregarding at least part of the new benefit so that those poorest one-parent families will receive help in the fairly near future.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North made the point that if we make special provision for one-parent families in advance of the other families we shall introduce another application of the cohabitation rule into the social security system. That will presumably be one of the major administrative problems of the new interim benefit system. I do not think that we can abolish the cohabitation rule so long as there are benefits which are not payable to married couples or married women. There must be lone-parent or single-parent benefits paid to people who are genuine lone parents and genuinely single parents. We cannot pay a level of benefit to unmarried people which is not given to those who are married. In practice that would be unpopular and difficult to apply. However applications of the rule should be kept to the minimum. It is unfortunate that the effect of the interim sop of a new benefit payable to one-parent families will be to introduce another cohabitation rule into the system.
  Let me look ahead beyond the interim measures to when the scheme is operating and deal finally with one problem that will arise for all future Governments when the child benefit scheme is implemented. We have all accepted that one effect of amalgamating the tax allowance system with the family allowance system is that the take-home pay of men will be reduced so as to increase the independent family income of their wives. It
  394
  may well be that that is just about all the Bill will achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, what will result if no funds are forthcoming is a mere transfer. The House should brace itself for that and try to accept it. We have all accepted it in principle. We must accept that in many ways it is a good thing and get on with phasing in that change as rapidly as possible. I do not relish a long period of phasing out tax allowances because no one can bring himself to accept the short-term unpopularity which might result if the change is not explained properly to wage-earners.
  It was not too far-fetched of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells to suggest that the Government might think of playing about with the scheme as a consequence of the timing of an election. It is not altogether unlikely that 1977 will be a pre-election year. I trust that there will be no delay in beginning the phasing out of the tax allowance scheme because in a pre-election period the Government cannot contemplate reducing men's take-home pay.
  We are used to putting on the pay slip what a person is actually getting and not what he is not getting, other than the tax deduction. It would be helpful to give a weekly notification to the husband of the amount of child benefit that he is earning. Something should be done to show him that his family income is not falling. Most women welcome the family allowance because of the degree of independence is gives them over one part of their housekeeping money and because they are assured of direct access to it on a particular day of the week. This independent income for the wife may help to overcome the wider problem that many men who receive considerable wage and salary increases do not adjust quickly enough to giving their wives an increased housekeeping allowance. That is a matter which we can contemplate in the future. It is a pity that the future is so far off and that we do not know how much money we shall be talking about.
  At least that ultimate objective is shared by both sides. We are talking about means and timing and not about the ends. The main end that unites the House is the desire to eliminate the embarrassing and ugly level of family

  395
  poverty that still exists in this comparatively prosperous country. That common desire enables us to reach complete agreement on the broad principle of the Bill and to give it an unopposed Second Reading.
  10.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): During the whole debate and in almost every speech the Government have been pressed either to do more or to implement the proposals more quickly, and sometimes to do both. My right hon. Friend and I welcome such pressures from inside the House and from bodies outside. When properly applied, those pressures act as a catalyst and help to speed up improvements in our social security provisions. Jointly, we can do as much as possible as quickly as we can and that, in the words of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is the common aim.
  The Bill is another important improvement in our social security provisions. It is in line with our manifesto commitments and it is in line with the promise we made to the people. It is another of the promises which we have kept. The manifesto said that we would introduce a new system of child cash allowances for every child, including the first, payable to the mother. I was glad, therefore, that almost without exception the Bill received a general welcome and the approval of the House. At least, I hope that it will receive the approval of the House. Now that the Opposition have decided that they will not officially vote against it there is a reasonable chance that it might receive a Second Reading.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide help for children. As such we have chosen to sustain families as units. It seems to me that the family as a unit is an important part of our social structure. It is necessary that when we examine the Bill—and having listened to all the speeches and heard the various suggestions put forward, it seems that we shall have an active time in Committee, although I hope a short time—we do so against a certain background. I would not like to say that I would welcome with enthusiasm on the Committee all the hon. Members who have spoken to
  396
  night, but fortunately the choice is not in my hands. I believe that we should examine the Bill against the background of the considerable programme of social security legislation which we have already carried through. Even now certain proposals are entertaining the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and myself and a number of other hon. Members in Committee.
  Another part of the background is the massive increase in the workload for our Department. I know that there is a considerable temptation to refer constantly to bureaucratic inefficiency or difficulty, but I must say, having spent a considerable time in the past six months visiting our local offices and regional offices throughout the country, that it would be extremely unwise for any Government not to take fully into account the work which, in the main, is carried out loyally and faithfully by our staffs in local offices. When the House passes legislation, that does not make even one benefit payable. The benefit is paid only when our local office staffs have done their work.
  I invite the House to consider what we have done and the extent of the burden which our staffs have accepted in the past 12 months or so. We had the uprating in July. It was the fastest up-rating of all time. That was followed about seven months later by a further uprating in April. We had the first family allowance increase since 1968 paid out in April of this year. We have seen the first change in supplementary benefit disregards since 1966. We have had minor improvements and changes to deal with such as beef tokens, the extended £10 Christmas box and changes in the heating allowances, apart from the new benefits for which we have already legislated and which are now in the pipeline waiting to be implemented.
  Bearing in mind that background, when my right hon. Friend was confronted with the physical impossibility of implementing the child benefit scheme any earlier than 1977 and the size of the programme which she had in hand, I think it would have been fairly easy for her to take the easy way out. She might well have been forgiven if she had decided to let the matter drop in its entirety. However, my right hon. Friend decided that was not to be her course of action.

  397
  She immediately said "Who are the hardest hit families?" The answer came clearly from all quarters of the House, and certainly from organisations outside—namely, the single-parent families. My right hon. Friend sought to find some way of giving some help to those hardest hit families, and she came up with the idea of giving them the equivalent of family allowances for the first child? That is why the child interim benefit was devised. I accept that the child interim benefit is a modest scheme. It is inevitably so. Nevertheless, it means an extra £20 million in the pockets of one-parent families. That is not what we would have liked to do, but it was certainly not to be ignored.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If the Under-Secretary wants a direct answer to his question—who are the hardest hit families in this country?—does he accept that they are probably the one-parent families who are totally dependent on supplementary benefit for their income and that they are not being helped one jot by the Government's proposals?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the extent of the supplementary benefit increases which we have brought about. Indeed, he was a Member of the Committee when we discussed these matters. The hon. Gentleman knows full well the arguments used by hon. Members to the effect that the doubling of the disregards would bring about this sort of help to one-parent families. To suggest that nothing has been done is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of it.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: When will the doubling of the disregards take effect?
  Mr. Jones: We have already announced that we hope to implement it later this year.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not agree. It is a question of trying to fit these things into a programme which makes sense to administer and carry out. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head, but it cannot be done merely by
  398
  decisions in this House. It has to be physically implemented by our staff.
  My right hon. Friend in opening the debate said that I would give some further details of the interim benefit.
  Who will qualify for this interim benefit? The answer is all one-parent families, except those already receiving a social security payment which allows for the fact that family allowance is not payable for the first child—for example, the widow receiving the widowed mother's allowance which already has a specially enhanced benefit rate for the first child. Such a widow's allowance is already £5·65 for the first child and £4·15 for additional children, thus allowing for the £1·50 difference for the non-entitlement to FAM for the first child. It is estimated that about 500,000 people will be within the scope of this interim benefit, of whom 100,000 are men who are the heads of one-parent families.
  Within the overall total of 500,000, over 200,000 families are in receipt of supplementary benefit. I understand why a number of hon. Members have therefore made the plea that the interim benefit should be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes so that these families should gain a financial advantage. But that ignores the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that we have made considerable increases in supplementary benefit to one-parent families in last autumn's increase, in the April uprating, and in the treatment of disregards.
  I sympathise with that approach, but I must tell the House that to introduce such a disregard would be alien to the Government's overall policy of trying to reduce dependency on means-tested benefits. We want to see fewer families dependent on means testing. In the eight years that I have been a Member of this House I have seen successive Governments try to face this dilemma. If, every time we introduce a new benefit as of right, part or all of it is to be disregarded for the purposes of supplementary benefit, no progress will ever be made towards reducing the supplementary benefit scheme to its original purpose—namely, to provide a safety net for the family in exceptional or crisis situations.
  Moreover, it therefore follows that since the interim benefit in effect extends the advantage of family allowances to the

  399
  eldest child in one-parent families, there would be at least as strong an argument to disregard part of the family allowance itself as to disregard the interim benefit.
  Finally, there is the point that the benefit is an interim benefit until 1977, when it is subsumed within the larger child benefit scheme. I do not believe there is any suggestion—at least, I have not heard such a suggestion from the Opposition—that part of the child benefit in its final form should be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes. But even with no disregard for supplementary benefit purposes, there remain over 250,000 people who will gain from the new interim payments. These are mainly single-parent families where the head of the household is in work. Here, of course, the largest benefit will go to the 45,000 families not in receipt either of family income supplement or of supplementary benefit but whose incomes are below the tax threshold.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I have listened to my hon. Friend's arithmetic. Is he saying now that instead of the 500,000 people he mentioned who are to benefit from the interim payment in 1976, only 250,000 will actually benefit? Does he mean that the remaining 250,000 will be no better off because of the lack of disregards?
  Mr. Jones: I thought that I had explained—I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present—that the numbers who will benefit from this particular interim payment will be about 250,000 people. But those receiving supplementary benefit will not benefit directly from this payment. However, we have already increased the supplementary benefit, as recently as April this year, and there is a further increase in supplementary benefits to come. That further increase will be in payment to those supplementary benefit cases even before this interim payment is made.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), stressed the need for some provision for uprating the child benefit.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to that matter, I assume that he will be dealing with a point that has been made by the Opposition on a fair number of occasions? He has waxed eloquent about the advantages of this interim benefit, but precisely why did 275 hon. Members of his party vote against it two months ago?
  Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question, he may find it desirable to refer to the parentage of the amendment that was tabled on that occasion.
  I want to comment on the fact that the Bill does not incorporate provisions for regular review of the child benefit rate. Some hon. Members have read into the absence of such provision sinister implications for the future of the scheme. There are no such implications. The reason for there being no review is quite simple. There is provision in Clause 5 for the child benefit rate to be fixed by regulations subject to affirmative resolution. It would be under this affirmative resolution provision that the benefit would be up-rated as necessary.
  This provision goes beyond the present family allowances legislation, in which there is no provision at all for changing the rates and main legislation is needed for every uprating. In fact, it puts the child benefit on an equal footing with supplementary benefit and family income supplement, which can be uprated by regulations but have no provision for formal regular reviews. In our upratings of supplementary benefits and FIS we have quite clearly shown that we are prepared to use those regulations without any formal legislative review procedure.
  The Social Security Act 1975 lays down formal provisions for annual review of benefits paid under that Act and requires uprating of those benefits in line with earnings or prices as appropriate. We do not propose that there should be anything similar for child benefit because it is a totally different kind of benefit, fulfilling a different purpose.
  In the first place it is a new kind of benefit—a hybrid, which amalgamates a social security benefit with a tax allowance. In the second place, most of the people receiving it will be people at work,

  401
  and the benefit will simply form a tax-free addition to their earned income. In this it is totally unlike benefits such as pensions which form the main source of income of those who receive them. For these reasons it would not be appropriate to apply to child benefit the same sort of review provisions as run for straightforward social security benefits.
  This does not of course mean that we shall leave the child benefit rate unchanged any more than they have been left unaltered in recent years. It will be raised from time to time in the light of inflation and other developments. But just as neither family allowances nor child tax allowances are subject to the rigid pattern of upratings that has been evolved for social security benefits nor will their successor benefit be.
  I can understand rather more easily the criticism coming from my hon. Friends about the need for some legislative reform for uprating than I can when it comes from Conservative Members. I invite them to look at the record of family allowances since they were introduced in 1946. Tory Members may or may not be surprised to know that despite all the years when they were in power, family allowances were increased only twice. There was a time lag of eight years from 1956 to 1964 during which period there was no uprating and a further period from 1970 to 1974 when again there was no uprating. It ill becomes Conservative Members to suggest that we are somewhat laggard.
  I wish to refer to the cohabitation rule as it applies to the child interim benefit. This is a subject which has been touched on by many hon. Members. I mention the subject and how the benefit will be administered particularly because there was an article in the Sun on Wednesday 30th April headed:
  "Big New Sex-Swoop Warning".
  which suggested that what the paper called "sex snoopers" would be sent to check that lone parents were not cohabiting. That sort of wild exaggeration does not help anyone. It may sell a few more papers but it cannot do any good for those having to face the problem.
  I am glad to provide an explanation which I trust will be a reassurance. Explanatory leaflets and claim forms for
  402
  the interim benefit will be in post offices from the beginning of January next. That might help my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter)—I am sorry he has left the Chamber—about the date of implementation. All the information that will normally be required to decide an entitlement will be on the claim form.
  The initial books will be issued by our network of local offices to run from 6th April 1976, and responsibility for the continued running of the scheme during the year 1976 to 1977 will then pass to a special unit at our Blackpool Central Office which will handle through the post all subsequent claims, and notified changes of circumstances. Of course, cohabitation will be a disqualifying circumstance since it would be both counter to the purpose of the benefit and grossly unfair to pay it where a man and woman are living together in the same circumstances as a husband and wife. Obviously if one of a couple—whether married or not—attempted to claim as if they were a one-parent family, we would have to react in a responsible way to such a fraudulent claim. But home visiting will not be part of the system, as I have already explained, and there will not therefore be the type of inquiries on the sort of scale envisaged by the newspaper report and possibly feared by my hon. Friend.
  Account has to be taken of the fact that the interim benefit is designed for one-parent families. If there are couples living together, either inside or outside marriage, obviously such a pair cannot at the same time be living together as a couple and as a single-parent family.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I asked about two single-parent families living together as man and wife who did not get the family allowance because each had one child. Will they still be excluded from this benefit?
  Mr. Jones: I think I should want notice of that before being able to give an authoritative answer as to the kind of treatment that would be appropriate in such a case.
  When we talk of this problem of cohabitation, I know, as do most hon. Members, of the difficulties which are bound to arise in operating this provision.

  403
  That is why I wanted to remind the House that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is currently reviewing the operation of the cohabitation rule, and the Secretary of State has asked the Commission to consider the desirability of any changes in the relevant provisions of the Supplementary Benefit Act.
  I was also very pleased to hear the general support given for the decision to abolish the wage-stop. I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool seemed to think that we did not need an Act of Parliament, and that I needed only to wave a magic wand to deal with this matter. We did need this Act.
  I am glad that it excited the Liberal Party. I have never seen the Liberal Party excited on anything before. It was quite an amazing sight.
  I think that the major justification for the abolition of the wage-stop is that whereas in 1970 there were some 35,000 claimants, now with the family income supplement increases, also announced at the same time, that number will be down to under 500 people. This is the figure I have been given, and I am quite staggered. It is 5,000 at this present moment, but with the implementation, so I understand, of the family income supplement increases, that will be even further reduced. It therefore seems a nonsense to keep this sort of provision on the Statute Book when it only causes distress to many families desperately in need. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it causes more distress to members of the staff who have to operate it.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made some references to the tax credit scheme and claimed some parentage for it, as others have done from time to time. I will not argue about that, except to say that the idea of amalgamating family allowances and child tax allowances was contained in a Labour Party document in 1969. Be that as it may, if the tax credit were introduced at the level necessary to fulfil the sort of social aims behind the original Green Paper, that would be sufficient to float some 800,000 old-age pensioners off supplementary benefit. To introduce a tax credit scheme now which would do that would cost £3,000 million.
  404
  The hon. Gentleman was doubtful about my right hon. Friend's claim that the tax credit scheme would remove only one of the means-tested schemes. I have checked this, and I understand that family income supplement is the only means-tested benefit which would be replaced by the tax credit and that 44 means-tested schemes would still apply. I say that to confirm what my right hon. Friend said.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the advertising of family income supplement. Obviously we shall continue that.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I shall not take up the further matter which is referred to in the Select Committee's Report. We are not seeking to persuade the Government to initiate the scheme straight away. We understand that it will cost a great deal of money. But we want them to declare in principle their agreement to the tax credit scheme, for the reasons that I have given. If it has also a Labour parentage, is not that another reason why they should do it?
  Mr. Jones: The part that we are proud to claim is that contained in this Bill. However, I shall not pursue that further, because I have still a number of matters with which to deal.
  One of the major criticisms made by a number of hon. Members concerned the timing. It was practically impossible for my right hon Friend to introduce the child benefit scheme, as she wanted to, any earlier than 1977. The building problem itself prevented it. If the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield believes that these physical difficulties did not exist, I suggest that he visits the site and carries out an inspection of the high alumina blocks for himself. It is time that this ghost was laid to rest. Of course, there are all kinds of other difficulties involved in trying to implement a scheme of this kind, but the accommodation problem turned out to be insuperable.
  The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about widowed mothers. The widowed mother will get child benefit for all her children, but it will not affect her total benefit income because of the adjustments between child benefit and social security child dependency benefits.

  405
  The hon. Member for Rushcliffe and others asked what was the level of benefit. Obviously it is not possible and not desirable to announce today the level of a benefit which is to be paid in 1977.
  I conclude by repeating some words of a countryman of mine, James Griffiths, who said when he introduced the family allowance:
  "… in the future all of us who take part in the passing of this Bill, who vote for it and help to improve it, will have reason to be proud of the fact that we have done something for the child life of this nation which will redound to the credit of the nation."—[Official Report, 8th March 1945; Vol. 408, c. 2290.]
  That may be considered a piece of Welsh exaggeration. If so, perhaps I may make another piece of Welsh exaggeration and say that this is a measure which is part of our development of a coherent policy in family support, and one which, as a Government, we are proud to have the opportunity to introduce.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  CHILD BENEFIT [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to replace family allowances with a new benefit to be known as child benefit and, pending the introduction of that benefit, to provide an interim benefit for unmarried or separated parents with children, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) the sums required by the Secretary of State for paying child benefit;

  (b) the sums required by the Secretary of State for paying interim benefit to unmarried or separated parents with children of a weekly amount equal to the rate for the time being specified under section 1 of the Family Allowances Act 1965 as the weekly rate of allowance under that Act for one child;

  (c) fees and allowances to members of any tribunal constituted under the said Act of the present Session and to any person appointed under that Act, and
  406
  allowances to persons attending before such a tribunal or such a person;

  (d) any expenses of the Secretary of State or of any other government department in the administration of that Act;

  (e) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act;

  (f) any sums for giving effect to financial adjustments made under provisions of that Act authorising reciprocal arrangements or agreements with Northern Ireland and with countries outside the United Kingdom;

  (2) Payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

  REFERENDUM ORDER
  11.0 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I beg to move
  That the Referendum Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
  This order applies the statutory machinery for holding the referendum on 5th June. It is made under Section 1 of the Act which received Royal Assent last week. In addition to substantive provisions, it applies all the necessary parts of the Representation of the People Act, Parliamentary Election Rules and the Representation of the People Regulations, modified where necessary in accordance with the principles set out in the debates we have had on the Referendum Act. The wording of this order has been made available since 7th April, when the White Paper on the order was published.
  Since then there have been two important changes which have had to be taken into account. This draft contains provision for special arrangements for voting in the Forces and a new provision for arrangements for counting votes by counties, and in Scotland by regions. Otherwise, this is substantially the same as the earlier version, on the basis of which returning officers have been making preparations.
  I shall not trouble the House with a recital of the fuller contents of the order which are essentially technical, but I hope I shall be able to answer questions on technical points at the end of the debate. I hope that the House will be prepared to approve the order and thus complete the statutory provision for the referendum.
  11.2 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: This debate is, I suppose, the last sad act of the Referendum Act. It is not my object to commiserate with the Government on the consequences of what followed from the Act but to seek assurances from them, without in any way seeking to make political capital. My questions are on matters which have caused some anxiety and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with them.
  The first is on absent voters and proxies lists. Regulation 30 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1969 says,
  "the registration officer shall, on request and without fee, supply to each candidate or his agent a copy of the absent voter's list"
  and this applies also to those on the postal proxy list. I do not see any provision for that in this order. It is important that those who may be canvassing should be provided with lists of those people so that they can carry out an essential part of their duty. I am not seeking that this order should be changed. It is too late for that. But some provision should be made so that those who have postal or proxy votes may be known to canvassers.
  I come to the power of observers under Article 5 of the order which provides for
  "the appointment of persons to observe the verification of the ballot paper accounts and the counting of the votes."
  It must be made clear that mere passive observers at the count are not enough. They must be observers who are able to take an initiative at the count and not merely to watch. They should be able to say, for example "That ballot paper has a four letter word and 'Down with Benn' instead of a cross". They must have power to take initiatives to deal with circumstances such as that at the counting. That is not in the order, and I hope that some assurances will be given that provision will be made for that.
  This fits in with consultation at the count, because the returning officer, in taking a decision on a dubious vote, is under an obligation to consult one of the agents from each interested party represented at the count. It may be that I have missed it, but there appears to be no obligation in the order in this respect, because there will be no candidate or election
  408
  agent. There should be powers for those present, however they may be appointed, to require the returning officer to consult them before deciding, in what would otherwise be a unilateral way upon dubious votes.
  The observers will be chosen in a way that I do not understand, particularly in areas where there is no umbrella organisation. It may be that the returning officer himself will appoint the observers from the two umbrella organisations, but there may be circumstances in which one or other is not taking an active part in a particular constituency. Is the returning officer himself to be responsible for appointing the observers? What will happen in those areas where neither umbrella organisation is campaigning? I imagine that Keep Britain in Europe or, in its absence, the Conservative Party associations, will blanket the country, but on occasion there may not be an observer to be appointed from the other side. It is right that everybody should be represented among the observers, and I should like to know how the returning officer will deal with that problem.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I certainly reject the idea that, in the absence of a Keep Britain in Europe local association, the Conservative Party association would do. That is an extraordinary piece of arroganc, of which I hope that we shall hear no more during the referendum.
  On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) about Article 5, I have been asked locally who will appoint the people concerned at local level. Where do MPs fit it? The order does not specify that MPs will automatically be entitled to verify in the polling stations and at the count, although we understand that that is the Government's intention. Curiously enough, MPs are allowed for in the detailed schedule dealing with declarations of secrecy. That should have been written into the order, but perhaps the Government will be able to say something about that. I hope that they will also say something about the appointment of those concerned.
  It is very odd, but I suppose part of the oddity of a referendum, but the provision on page 5, relating to modifications

  409
  to Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act—
  "Right to use certain schools and halls for meetings at parliamentary elections".
  —appears to provide that any member of the public who wishes to secure a "Yes" or "No" vote, which must include virtually everybody in the country, is entitled to use a school or hall. I find it difficult to believe that that is the intention. Is this nonsense completely unavoidable? If so, we must hope and pray that the public at large do not realise it.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Roper: We are on uncharted ground, and those involved in the campaign will find it difficult to be sure of a number of matters. When will the Minister announce the arrangements for the appointment of people to act as observers? Will the same people have to be appointed as observers at district level for the verification of votes as at county level for the counting of votes?
  People may well be available in the evening to be present for the verification of votes, but not on the following day for the counting. Therefore, if it is thought appropriate, I hope that it will be possible for different persons to be appointed as observers for the verification and for the counting stages. I realise that the detailed provisions are not in the order, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is given powers to make these arrangements, and we should like an indication of what is in his mind.
  In Article 7 there is a reference to the regulations which the Secretary of State will be empowered to make with respect to voting by members of the forces. When are the regulations likely to be made and to be laid before the House?
  Reference has already been made by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) to the supply of the lists of proxy and absent voters. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say something about the supply of registers to the two sides in the campaign? As far as I can see, no explicit provision is made in the order to amend the normal provisions for parliamentary elections.
  One must ask whether disputed ballot papers should be taken to the level of the
  410
  chief counting officer to adjudicate upon them with the national agents of the two sides, though it would delay the result. We should like advice on the matter.
  Rule 51, on page 13, makes provision for a recount. It says:
  "Before the counting officer makes any public accouncement concerning the numbers required to be certified in accordance with section 2(6) of the Referendum Act 1975 or certifies the numbers so required, he shall consult the Chief Counting Officer who may, without prejudice to any other directions which he may give, direct the counting officer to recount the ballot papers."
  Does that mean that it is impossible for the counting officer for any county to declare the result for that county until the results from all the counties are known and the need, or otherwise, for a recount becomes established?
  11.13 p.m.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: Like others who have already spoken, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would give us more information about the arrangements to be made under Article 5 for the appointment of observers at the count. I note that the wording in Article 5(1) has been changed from the original draft, to include as two separate operations the verification of the ballot paper accounts and the counting of the votes. Does it mean that the two operations will take place in two places, or will all the votes for a particular county or, in Scotland, region be gathered together before the verification stage?
  Reference has been made to appointing observers who might be nominated by the umbrella organisations. Even in those parts of the country where the umbrella organisations are fully active, they are still not the complete British people. There are many other people with no connection with the umbrella organisations who are very interested in the outcome of the referendum, and who might also appreciate the opportunity to be present at some of the counts.
  The possibility of Members of Parliament being present at counts has been mentioned. Now that counting is to be done at county level in England and Wales and at regional level in Scotland, the members of those local authorities might be considered as suitable people to be appointed as observers.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I am not sure what Article 5 means since it is exceptionally brief and it omits certain points. For instance, does the appointment of persons to observe verification of the ballot paper include any advisory comments on exclusions of people who would normally feel qualified to observe? That aspect is exceedingly vague. Postal votes are often dealt with at a separate count. Is provision made here for observers at that separate count? It would appear that the intention is that there should be, but it is not clear and I hope the Minister will indicate whether that is the case.
  There is nothing in the order to give guidance on who the observers shall be, what their qualifications and standing shall be, whether political parties should be excluded and whether office holders in those parties should be included by virtue of their office.
  The remaining articles deal with modifications to the Representation of the People Acts, but according to page 13 of the order the initiative for the declaration of the result appears to be in the hands of the chief counting officer. In this context, is there any guidance about when a recount would be undertaken? Those of us with experience of parliamentary elections know that usually there is a mutual understanding in different areas between the parties about the disparity which should warrant a recount. In this case it would appear that only one man can decide. Is there any guidance on this point, or will the matter rest with one man?
  Is the Minister satisfied that the order covers sufficiently the anomalies involved in voting by post and proxy? I am not clear about the question of the Armed Forces, for instance, although I do not want to spend any time on that. I spoke on that subject at some length on the last occasion, and I hope that the Minister will indicate that the points raised then have been taken into account in framing Article 7.
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: In General Elections in the normal course of events at many of the counts there are public galleries from which people not connected with the count can watch
  412
  the proceedings. They have no function, but are there out of interest. In the past returning officers have been able to exercise a certain control and influence over this matter. Will the public be admitted under these rules?
  It is not immediately clear that they will, even in the discretion of the verifying officer. Rule 45 on page 11 says,
  "The verifying officer may limit the number of observers present at the proceedings so that the proportion of observers to his assistants is one observer to two assistants."
  It looks as though the observers mentioned will be observers of the polling procedure for purposes of verification. I am referring to members of the general public who might wish to view the count from the gallery, so as to be near their friends, relations, councillors and so on.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) asked me a series of questions about who would have access to the absent voters' list. Advice will be going out that those who have charge of the absent voters' list—the returning officers in normal elections—should give access to that list to anyone who asks bona fide. I refer to a person who approaches the returning officer saying that he represents one of the two campaigning organisations or who, for some other reason connected with the referendum wishes to see the absent voters' list.
  The appointment of observers will be in the hands of returning and counting officers. The advice is likely to be that they should accept observers nominated by the local branches of the two umbrella organisations. However, they have very wide powers. They may appoint whomsoever they wish to be observers at the count.
  Perhaps I should deal with several other questions simultaneously. In a sense I have already answered them. It is entirely up to the local returning and counting officers as to whom they accept and how many people they accept. They will have to take account of local conditions. It would be pointless to say that there should be general access for the public, albeit in a gallery, in a hall of a restricted size. On the other hand, if there is plenty of room I hope that, since this is part of our democratic machinery,

  413
  returning and counting officers will not be too restrictive. But they, and they alone, can judge the local circumstances.
  Mr. Leadbitter: This is a matter of vital importance. The House will regret it if we do not spend time on this.
  Past experience has shown that many returning officers do not take local circumstances into account in the manner mentioned by the Minister. On many occasions political parties have had to press, according to their interpretation of local circumstances, their requirements for the count and for polling station provision. I wonder whether the Minister will be precise. When he says that local circumstances should be taken into consideration, does he mean that local opinion—the views of important sections of the community in which the count is taking place will be taken into account? How can local circumstances be taken into account other than by the interpretation of an individual?
  Mr. Fowler: I should be surprised if the returning officer in Hartlepool did not take into account the opinion of my hon. Friend if he stressed it with that vigour. I am sure that it would be a valiant returning officer who resisted that pressure. I hope that returning and counting officers will take local views into account. However, I stress, as we did so often in the debates on the referendum, that we hope that we shall stick in the referendum as closely as possible to the well-tried and well-used procedures with which we are familiar in General Elections. If returning officers are familiar with those procedures I am sure that they will exercise their discretion to ensure that there is the maximum democratic participation.
  Mr. Lawrence: There is a confusion in my mind, which is not resolved by the document, as to what is meant by "observers". In an election the local government officials who count the ballot papers are watched by persons whom I understand the order refers to as "observers". That is why Rule 45(3) says that the proportion of observers to assistants is one observer to two assistants. The observer is the person who stands by the table and watches the two assistants sorting the ballot papers. That takes no account of the general observer, not necessarily on the floor watching the
  414
  counting of votes but in the public gallery. The Minister says that the rules are plain, but no distinction appears to be made between those two kinds of "observed".
  Mr. Fowler: I was coming to the hon. Gentleman's point which he has now made twice. When he referred to Rule 45(3) in his original intervention he quoted it accurately and used the words "may restrict". That is the key.
  I come back to what I said about local circumstances. If there is no gallery and no room, the returning or counting officer may restrict the number of observers to the point which is specified in the order. The word "observers" in the order includes what those of us who are familiar with electoral practice call counting agents, and observers in the public gallery. Where there is a public gallery and where there is space, there is no reason why a returning or counting officer should not admit members of the general public, subject to the normal checks which are applied by the order.
  I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon who appoints observers. By the terms of the order the returning or counting officer appoints observers. I hope that he will take account of nominations from the two umbrella organisations. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked what happens if there is no umbrella organisation. The answer has to be that because he has wide powers the returning or accounting officer will be able to appoint whomsoever he thinks fit in the absence of nominations. I hope that returning and counting officers will see fit, where there is no local branch of an umbrella organisation, to nominate those whom they think represent the particular viewpoint within that area.
  That is the best I can do here. It is like asking what happens in a General Election to the interests of a certain party when that party is not contesting a seat. The answer is that that party is not represented at the count. We can only rely—as I am sure we can—on the good sense of returning and counting officers.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to know whom the counting officer consults with regard to possibly spoilt papers. We hope that where there are local branches of the umbrella organisations and those organisations are

  415
  represented at the count, they will be able informally to appoint a leader who will act in the way in which an agent normally acts in a General Election. Many hon. Members who have agents will be familiar with the procedure. Others who do not will be familiar with the procedure whereby they may themselves have to look at the spoilt paper or decide at the last moment with the returning officer whether a paper is spoilt.
  I freely confess that this is not an ideal arrangement. It cannot be an ideal arrangement, simply because there are no candidates in a referendum. We hope that returning and counting officers will seek to encourage local organisations to nominate for the count a leader who may play the part played by an agent in a General Election.
  Sir M. Havers: It is clear from what the Minister says that there is a degree of informality which is probably inescapable in an operation of this kind. As the conduct of the poll may be influenced by the report of this debate, may I seek the hon. Gentleman's assistance also in making clear to returning officers that observers—those on the floor, not those in the gallery, because they are two different classes—should be able to draw the returning officer's attention to any thing they see which they consider to be of importance—for example, a vote which is going into the wrong pile or something like that?
  Mr. Fowler: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. No restriction will be placed upon observers who are acting as counting agents, if so I might call them, beyond what would be placed upon them at a normal election count.
  Since the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that much of the guidance will come from tonight's debate, let me assure him that Sir Philip Allen—we are delighted that he has accepted the task of acting as chief counting officer in the referendum; we are grateful indeed to him that after carrying the burden of Permanent Secretary in the Home Office for many years he has agreed to do this—will be issuing guidance to counting officers throughout the country. I hope that what I say tonight, where I am talking
  416
  not about the precise contents of the order but about the guidance which may be issued under it, will not be taken as the last word, because I am sure that Sir Philip Allen will wish to qualify and certainly to spell out in greater detail some of the things I have been saying.
  If I may now turn—
  Mr. Leadbitter: Before my hon. Friend leaves what he is now saying—
  Mr. Fowler: Before my hon. Friend, who has already spoken and intervened, intervenes again, perhaps before leaving the question of observers I may deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper): whether the same people must necessarily be observers at the count and at the verification of the ballot. The answer is "No". In many places they will be the same, in others they will not. That is entirely up to local circumstances and, again, to the decision of the local returning and counting officers.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I want only to be helpful. While a degree of discretion is laid upon the chief counting officer, would it not be a good idea that, since before the count starts the observers will be known, they should nominate from themselves representatives to carry out the normal functions which take place at an election of dealing with questions of spoilt papers, postal votes and the rest?
  Mr. Fowler: That was exactly what I was saying a moment ago. We very much hope that where there are efficient local branches of the umbrella organisations which are represented at the count, they will nominate a representative from among themselves to perform exactly those tasks.
  I have been asked one or two other questions about the verification and the count. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) asked whether the verification and the count would be at the same place. The answer is "No". In general, in England at least, the verification will take place within the districts. The ballot boxes—not necessarily the same ballot boxes, because the ballots, having been verified, may be put into a smaller number of boxes—will then be transferred to the place where the count will take place at county level.

  417
  My hon. Friend asked whether anybody could go to the count, including councillors, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), asked about the position of Members. Members will be able to go both to the verification and to the count. No special provision is made for councillors, but again it is entirely up to the local returning officer and the local counting officer whether they should admit councillors—whether county or district, or regional or district in the case of Scotland—to the count. Again, the returning officer's view will no doubt be formed by local circumstances.
  I was asked whether disputed ballot papers should all go to the chief counting officer. The answer has to be "No". If that were to happen, I fear that the referendum would last for weeks after 5th June. That is a prospect that one could not readily contemplate. The chief counting officer will be holding conferences with counting officers throughout the realm and he will be issuing advice. Most of the counting officers will have years of experience of judging what is and what is not a spoiled paper from local and general elections. We have every faith in their judgment.
  Finally, I turn to the question of a recount. It was suggested that it might not be possible for a local counting officer to declare his county result, regional result, GLC result or result in Northern Ireland before a recount has either been called or not been called, as the case might be, and that it could not occur until the national result was in. The counting officer will be able to declare the local result but it will, in a sense, be a provisional result. If it were then necessary that there should be a national recount, it might well be that there would prove to be some local variation in the result as originally declared. We hope, however, that results locally will come through on the Friday and on the Saturday after the referendum so that by early or mid-evening of the Saturday after 5th June we should have the final national result. I think that we all keep our fingers crossed and hope that there will be no recount.
  Sir M. Havers: I am slightly anxious about that distinguished civil servant Sir Philip Allen going off on his own, in
  418
  a sense. The Minister has said that he will not be bound by our discussion tonight. However, the House has to approve the order, and I hope very much that when Sir Philip considers the rules that he will send out to the various returning officers he will bear in mind the views expressed by the House tonight. Some of those views have been raised almost repetitively by a number of hon. Members. I hope that Sir Philip will not suddenly make some change as a result of the Minister saying that he will not be bound by what is said tonight.
  Mr. Fowler: I can assure the House that Sir Philip will be bound hand and foot by the provisions of the order once the House has approved it. I am sure that he will take full account of everything that is said in this debate. Some points, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, have not only been made but made and made again. I am sure that they will not escape Sir Philip's notice. I commend the order to the House.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understood the Minister to say a short while ago that he expected that some of the local results would be announced before it was known whether there would be a recount. I may have misheard him, but that was what I thought he said. If so, I find that difficult to reconcile with revised Rule 51 at the foot of page 13, which appears to say:
  "Before the counting officer makes any public announcement"—
  that is, concerning the result—
  "he shall consult the Chief Counting Officer who may … direct the counting officer to recount."
  The natural meaning of those words is that there will be no local announcements until in each case the chief counting officer has cleared the result, as it were, on the question of a recount.
  Mr. Fowler: May I, with the leave of the House, reply to the question? I am almost timid about saying it of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the provision. He is confusing the possibility of a local recount with the possibility of a national recount. What is suggested in the provision to which he draws attention is that the local counting officer shall clear the local result with

  419
  the chief counting officer. Of course, as I have repeatedly said to the House when we have been debating the referendum, the local result is of no significance although some will attribute a significance to it. It may be because some wish to attribute significance to it that there will be a call for a local recount irrespective of and long before there is any national result. At that point the local counting officer may wish to consult the chief counting officer, and there may be a local recount. However, that has little to do with the horrendous possibility that there may have to be a national recount which, irrespective of whether there had been a local recount, would entail a recount in every area of the country.
  Mr. David Steel: Earlier the Minister said that Members of Parliament would be admitted to the counts. However, the order does not so state. Is this to be the Minister's instruction to Sir Philip Allen and downwards to the returning officer?
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman did not deal with my question about the use of schools and halls.
  Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman rereads the order, he will find a Rule 45B:

  "(1) The counting officer shall make arrangements for the counting of the votes.

  (2) No person, other than the counting officer and his assistants, the Members of Parliament for constituencies wholly or partly within the area … observers and other persons permitted by the counting officer may be present at the count."

  The order, therefore, makes provision for Members of Parliament to be present at the count.
  The hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct about school halls. We hope that there will not be frivolous bookings of school halls and the like. We come back to the point that I have already made. Candidates are not involved. Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to put one's finger on a person, or that person's agent, as we do at General Elections, who shall be solely entitled to and responsible for certain functions.
  Mr. Roper: Before my hon. Friend sits down, I wonder whether he would reply to the questions that I asked. First, when will the regulations under paragraph
  420
  7 dealing with the Armed Forces be made? Secondly, will he tell us about the supply of registers to those involved in the referendum campaign?
  Mr. Fowler: We have already said in debates on the Bill, now the Act, that it would be far too costly to supply registers on demand free of charge. The normal provisions will apply. Anyone who wishes to purchase a register will be able to do so. Members of Parliament are entitled to registers at a reduced rate. I assume that most hon. Members are committed one way or the other. Therefore, I doubt whether there will be any acute difficulty about the supply of registers.
  I assure the House that the order fulfils in toto the undertakings that were given in the debates on the Act regarding voting by members of the Forces. I think that there is little further to be said about that. The order, together with the provisions of the Act, provides that all members of the Armed Forces, save those who are under the water for three weeks at a time, or whatever it may be, may vote in the referendum. It also provides that existing proxies for members of the Armed Forces shall be cancelled so as to eliminate the possibility of dual voting.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Referendum Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.

  REFERENDUM ORDER
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

  GOVERNMENT CHEMIST (LABORATORY)
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Students of the Hardman Report on the Dispersal of Government Work from London will be particularly interested in this debate. I am delighted to see that there are a few stalwart Members who have this interest at heart and are present tonight. They will also be interested in the earlier report of Sir Gilbert Flemming in 1962–63. This is

  421
  a subject which has exercised the mind of Government for some time. Tonight it is concerned with the relocation of the laboratory of the Government Chemist.
  I suppose that there will be those who find this very important institution in our Civil Service as strange as possibly the Official Solictor was to us some years ago, but none the less the Government Chemist exists and does a very important job of work.
  My particular interest in the matter dates back at least to 1972, when there occurred on the borders of my constituency an event which was met with great dismay, for reasons that had led to the loss from our community of a very large number of highly talented people and of job opportunity, too. It was at that time that the fibres division of Imperial Chemical Industries, which operates a large complex, announced the closure of its research facilities at its Pontypool site.
  I should like at this point to mention the unavoidable absence from the Chamber of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) due to a temporary illness. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
  At that time the hon. Member for Pontypool and I protested very strongly to the company about its decision to remove its research work to Harrogate, where it had decided, for economic reasons, that it had to concentrate all its research on one site. We regretted that decision for the reasons to which I have referred. It meant that although the company was increasing the opportunity for jobs in the factory side, the manufacturing side, job opportunities were being missed for young technicians and technologists, and we were losing something in the social mix because of the high-powered nature of some of the people who had to work in this very complicated area of research.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool and I had some very harsh things to say about the company at that time. Arising, I think, partly from that and partly from the reaction of people locally, I am glad to say that a large number of groups—the company itself, the Welsh Office the Department of Industry, the county planning department, local councils and the
  422
  trades unions—all worked very well to see what could be done to offset this loss to the area. They had quite considerable success. I pay tribute to all those who took part for the work they put in.
  Unfortunately, this did not meet the case. As a result, new job opportunities were created but unfortunately they were largely of a clerical nature. The loss of technical and technological jobs to which I have referred was not made up. As we all know, the Hardman Committee on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs recommended that Newport should be a dispersal area for Department of Industry people. Unfortunately, once again no technical or technological jobs were involved. In the Hardman Report it was recommended that the laboratory of the Government Chemist should be moved out of Central London to Teddington because the Committee took the view—confirmed on page 187 of its report, and in the report of the Government Chemist; Hardman and the Government Chemist seem to have taken the same line here—that
  "the laboratory … should preferably be located near to another relevant research establishment to enable common facilities to be shared".
  The report went on to say:
  "a location on the periphery of London would be desirable to avoid the need for keeping an outstation in London".
  As a result its recommendation was that it should go to Teddington.
  In July 1973 the newly-elected Labour Government took a look at the Hardman proposals and set them aside. It was announced by the Lord President in July 1974 that the Government took the view that the laboratory of the Government Chemist should go not to Teddington but to Cumbria. I stress that it is not my intention in any way to rob the people of Cumbria of much-needed jobs.
  Mr. Michael Jobling: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am glad to have support for that. I appreciate that no doubt the people of Cumbria have problems of a similar nature to those of my constituents. They badly need to get the benefit of dispersal as recommended by successive Governments.
  I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that I have tabled Questions and

  423
  written to him but that I am not at all satisfied by the answers I have received. I took up the matter with the Secretary of State for Wales in September 1974 and in December of that year he wrote to me as follows:
  "However, it has been decided that the Laboratory should be re-located in Cumbria and this decision was announced by the Government in July as part of our dispersal package".
  No reason was given why this particular department should go to Cumbria. I followed that up with a Question to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and asked whether in view of the Government's decision it would be necessary to construct new laboratories or other new facilities. He replied that the problems in volved in moving the laboratory of the Government Chemist to West Cumbria were still being examined and that it was too early to say what facilities would be required but that new construction might well be required.
  In a letter of 18th April the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie), who is replying tonight, replied to a letter of mine.
  In my letter I asked four questions. I asked:
  "What site or sites in Cumbria has the Government got in mind?"
  The reply was:
  "The Government has no specific sites in mind at the present time. Following its decision that the Laboratory should be re-located in West Cumbria there have been discussions with the local authorities who are now preparing information about a number of sites which they regard as suitable."
  I asked
  "What existing facilities are available?"
  The reply was:
  "I understand that the sites being considered by the local authorities are mostly 'green field' sites, although the possibility of utilising any appropriate existing building is not ruled out."
  We come now to two complicated matters which I hope the Minister will clear up because I do not wish to make a great issue of them. I asked:
  "How many scientists, technicians and support staff will be required?"
  There seems to be some confusion over the figures. In his reply the Minister said:
  424
  "The current staff of the Government Chemist located in the London Laboratory is 453 in total."
  In the Hardman Report there is reference to the lower figure of 330 to 358 depending on the receiving location. There has been continuing confusion about this. I understand that the number of staff has increased, due to extra work. I suspect that some of the confusion may have arisen from an impression whether we are dealing entirely with the staff in London at Cornwall House or whether, on some occasions, we are including staff in out-stations in this country and abroad, including the Far East. But since the number of people involved has a bearing on the matter, I should like to get this cleared up.
  Finally, I asked him what additional facilities will have to be provided, and his reply stated that the laboratory of the Government Chemist requires modern laboratory facilities of some 20,000 square metres. I checked with his office whether a point had been misplaced, because I have ascertained that the present Cornwall House premises on the other side of the river are about 140,000 square feet. This seems to be an enormous expansion to about 215,000 square feet.
  This is where the site at Pontypool comes in. There is, in fact, standing in Pontypool an empty laboratory. The people have gone to Harrogate and to other places—mainly to Harrogate, through the reorganisation by ICI Fibres Limited—and standing there are some very good and very high standard laboratory facilities. In addition to that, if there is future expansion by the Government Chemist, apart from laboratory facilities of admittedly less than 215,000 square feet there is an additional building next door with considerable facilities, including air conditioning, of 145,000 square feet. On the question of size and accommodation for staff there can be little if any doubt that these premises exist.
  We are living through a time of economic crisis. There is great gloom as to the condition of sterling. There is much talk of cuts in Government expenditure. It seems to me that in such a situation the saving of candle ends is very important, and the best estimate that I can obtain—this is very difficult because laboratories can be built to various specifications—is that to build a laboratory

  425
  on a greenfield site in West Cumbria would cost at least £6 million. That would be a very large candle end, in my view, and well worth the saving in the present economic state of this country.
  I put it to the Minister that the Government should look once again at their decision. I stress—and I cannot overstress—that, coming as I do, from a rural area, I do not wish to rob West Cumbria of much needed jobs. I stress that the removal of the research department from Pontypool has robbed the area and left a great vacuum. It is sad to see a facility such as this left unused and that at a time of economic crisis the government should be contemplating the expenditure of £6 million when I have the assurance of the company that they would be more than ready to agree to very generous terms because they very much wish not to rip out the laboratory facilities, which, in my view, would be a complete waste.
  Finally, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to this point. In the Hardman Report, and in the view of the Government Chemist himself, in his 1972 report, the present high efficiency and effectiveness of the laboratory service to the Government Departments could be impaired if it were to move further away than about one hour's travel from Central London.
  The fact is that West Cumbria is 4½ hours from London—that is, by fast train to Carlisle. Pontypool is two hours by train. There is a good motorway and a good railway. In addition, high-speed trains are now travelling from Paddington to South Wales and Bristol.
  I put it to the Minister no higher than this. The case I have put to him tonight certainly means that the matter merits at least further inquiry. I would ask him not to turn it down, but to put it up once again and to take a good look at it, because it seems to me that it would be a shocking waste to leave those laboratory premises empty or to convert them into offices at considerable cost and then to spend £6 million elsewhere. Cannot other means be found to help West Cumbria, so that these offices may be taken up to avoid the waste that will be involved in adhering to the present policy?
  12 midnight.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly in this Adjournment debate. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) for his constituency, and it is very commendable that he should raise the matter as he has. However, it is a matter which was the subject of a Government decision almost a year ago.
  The decision to relocate the laboratory of the Government Chemist in West Cumbria—and I stress that it is West Cumbria and not Cumbria—was fundamental. There has never been a Government Department of any kind in the old county of Cumberland and, together with it, the old county of Westmorland which now forms the Cumbria authority area. There have been no civil servants' jobs in the area. In this sense, it was a fundamental decision.
  In making the decision, the Government were conscious of the need to expand the spectrum of employment opportunities in the area, and I campaigned strongly for this decision and welcomed it when it was made.
  The second point is that progress has already been made in implementing the decision. Meetings have taken place, and the local authorities in Cumbria have provided briefs on different sites about education facilities, housing, and so on, so that the staff affected by this relocation can be in no doubt not only that they will be welcome in one of the most pleasant areas in the United Kingdom but also that the authorities there are giving thought to matters which will concern them.
  My noble Friend the Minister of State confirmed to me recently in a letter that further progress was soon to be made on this decision, and I look to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to confirm that this is so.
  If there is any criticism to be made of the decision, it is that the Government have been rather slow in implementing it. As I said just now, almost a year has elapsed since the decision was made, and those of us, like the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who are interested in the matter and represent the area could, with justification, say that we

  427
  look for more progress in this matter and not for a reconsideration of the decision.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth is reopening the issue because he looks to his constituency, but in South Wales there are already a very significant number of Civil Service jobs available to the community. He sees facilities there, and he looks at a Government decision and raises the matter when, in effect, it is already well progressed—not well enough for my satisfaction, but far too well for the Government to consider again what should happen.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm, therefore, that the laboratory will go to West Cumbria and assure me that no further delay will be countenanced in the matter.
  12.4 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I want first to commend the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) for the way in which he has drawn attention to a subject which I recognise to be one of considerable local importance to him. It goes without saying that the Government need no reminding of the problems of South Wales. We have far too many of our colleagues and, from time to time, Opposition Members reminding us of South Wales, and the problems of employment there, for that to be necessary. We are always conscious of them. May I say to the hon. Member how grateful I am for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who has been concerned about this matter and has indicated to me his concern in this debate.
  The heart of this debate is the importance of transferring to the regions more of the decision making. In this, industry and Government both have an important part to play. The Department of Industry have a rôle in encouraging industry to relocate in the assisted areas. The Government, in respect of their own rôle as employers, have shown their determination to make their contribution by dispersing the work of Government Departments. Tonight we are talking about one unit of that dispersal—the laboratory of the Government Chemist.
  428
  The hon. Member reminded the House that the Hardman Report recommended that the laboratory should be on the periphery of London. In this way it concluded that the whole of the staff of 358 at that time could be moved. A location such as Teddington, near the National Physical Laboratory, would be the most suitable and would enable any facilities to be shared.
  However, the House will remember that my right hon. Friend, the Lord President, said on 30th July in relation to the Hardman recommendations on dispersal that some 7,000 posts from the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development will go to Glasgow. A similar number from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments will go to Cardiff and Newport. Some 4,500 jobs will go to the North West Region, the bulk of them to Merseyside. The headquarters of the Property Services Agency, some 3,000 posts, will go to Teeside, while the laboratory of the Government Chemist will move to West Cumbria.
  This is a big dispersal exercise, the biggest undertaken in peace time, but the problem about any scheme for dispersal is that there is no one right answer. It is quite impossible to satisfy everybody. The Conservative Government commissioned studies under Sir Henry Hardman of the possible pieces of a dispersal jigsaw and where they might be sent to. The report of this study was published in June 1973. The Hardman Report itself offered three solutions: an "efficient" solution, a "regional" solution and a compromise "recommended" solution. The recommended solution would have left one-third of the jobs in the South-East region and only just over half would have gone to assisted areas.
  This Government were determined to follow up the Hardman study—after a necessary period of consultation—by taking decisions and getting the detailed work of planning and execution well and truly launched. We were also determined to get better value from the whole operation by ensuring that a greater proportion of the jobs were moved to assisted areas where they are most needed. During the consultation period there was, not unexpectedly, a great deal of pressure from assisted areas to secure the benefit

  429
  represented by particular bits of the dispersal programme.
  We had a number of inquiries from interested local authorities, about a more radical move for the laboratory than the outskirts of London. I do not want to offend by omitting to mention particular contenders but I know that we had representations from Caithness and Sutherland, South Wales, North Wales, Cumberland, Peterlee and many others. Clearly all but one had to be disappointed, however carefully their claims were considered. Clearly, too, there was likely to be a conflict of interest between what the laboratory felt to be its essential requirements for the tasks it has to fulfil and what the various locations felt they could offer.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth will realise from what I have just said that the Government have now made a firm decision concerning the relocation of the laboratory of the Government Chemist. It will be in West Cumbria. I would not deny the justification for his attempt to win a new occupant for the premises vacated by ICI Fibres Ltd. in his constituency.
  Mr. Jopling: I welcome the Minister's statement that a firm decision has been made that this Department will go to West Cumbria, because that follows the efforts made by me and the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) under the previous Government to get it to go there. But in view of the compelling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), will he use every endeavour to get some similar technical organisation to fill those premises at Monmouth?
  Mr. Mackenzie: I think we can take that for granted. I will come to that later. The Department has always had a conscience about these vacant premises. Our office in Wales asked whether these premises could be used by the Government Chemist but was told that they are not suitable. There are no other scientific blocks of work, unfortunately, in the Department which would suit these premises. But my Department will continue to seek a suitable tenant for those premises.
  There are some practical reasons why the premises are less suitable than might appear for the Government Chemist. I
  430
  am told—in case the hon. Member thinks that the figures are a mistake, I can assure him that I have checked them—that the laboratory will need 20,000 square metres in the first place, with room for expansion. I understand that the research and development block at Pontypool is only 5,500 square metres, but even apart from that—I know that this will disappoint the hon. Member—in any dispersal scheme there has to come a time of decision.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the number of staff. The discrepancy he mentioned is a result of staff taken on since 1st April 1972 and does not include the outstation figure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has been campaigning on this matter for a long time. A preliminary talk has been held with the Cumbria County Council about facilities in the area. There were discussions with the Department's northern regional office, which has considerable experience in the location of industry. While I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which he has expressed to me publicly and privately, that the progress towards establishing the new quarters appears to be slow, he can be assured that that is not so. We are conscious of the need to carry on here. Although there will be little to see for a considerable time, we are expecting to hold further discussions with the local authorities, including Cumbria, about possible sites in the next month. But if we plan to make a success of this transfer, it will have to be done thoroughly.
  I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth and, in his absence, to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, that we understand their concern. But what we have suggested in terms of job transfers from Government Departments to South Wales for the future is worth while. Labour Governments have a worthwhile record in regard to South Wales—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Suez Canal Clearance
  Suez Canal Clearance
  Industrial Establishments (Employee Participation)
  Industrial Establishments (Employee Participation)
  Textile Purchases
  Textile Purchases
  Inchterf P and E Establishment
  Inchterf P and E Establishment
  BAOR Reorganisation
  BAOR Reorganisation
  Molesworth Airfield (Use)
  Molesworth Airfield (Use)
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Expenditure Reductions (Employment Effects)
  Expenditure Reductions (Employment Effects)
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Persian Gulf (Secretary of State's Visit)
  Persian Gulf (Secretary of State's Visit)
  Conscription
  Conscription
  Departmental Contracts
  Departmental Contracts
  Germany (Civilian Personnel)
  Germany (Civilian Personnel)
EMPLOYMENT
  Wales
  Wales
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (FORMULATION)
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (FORMULATION)
  NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  TUC (MEETING)
  TUC (MEETING)
  ELECTORAL REFORM
  ELECTORAL REFORM
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  MINISTERIAL TRANSPORT
  MINISTERIAL TRANSPORT
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS Hospitals (Single Rooms)
  NHS Hospitals (Single Rooms)
  Rabies and Pet Animal Smuggling
  Rabies and Pet Animal Smuggling
  Pension Proposals
  Pension Proposals
  Blind Persons' Allowance
  Blind Persons' Allowance
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Wage Stop Abolition
  Wage Stop Abolition
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Field Place Nursing Home, New Milton
  Field Place Nursing Home, New Milton
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigs (Regulations)
  Pigs (Regulations)
  Grain (Third World)
  Grain (Third World)
  Sugar
  Sugar
CIVIL SERVICE
  Scientists
  Scientists
  UNIFICATION CHURCH AND UNITED FAMILY ENTERPRISES LTD.
  UNIFICATION CHURCH AND UNITED FAMILY ENTERPRISES LTD.
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wild Birds (Imports)
  Wild Birds (Imports)
  Dr. E. R. Fields (Entry Permit)
  Dr. E. R. Fields (Entry Permit)
  Community Transport
  Community Transport
NORTHERN IRELAND
  European Community
  European Community
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Offshore Oil and Gas (Channel Islands)
  Offshore Oil and Gas (Channel Islands)
  Private Police Forces
  Private Police Forces
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industry Objectives
  Nationalised Industry Objectives
  Perquisites
  Perquisites
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Women's Taxation
  Women's Taxation
  Animal Smuggling
  Animal Smuggling
  Whisky
  Whisky
SCOTLAND
  Handicapped Children (Register)
  Handicapped Children (Register)
  Hotels (Fire Regulations)
  Hotels (Fire Regulations)
  Pigs (Regulations)
  Pigs (Regulations)
  Land Owners
  Land Owners
  School Leaving Dates
  School Leaving Dates
  Pedlars' Certificates
  Pedlars' Certificates
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Fire Brigade Officers
  Fire Brigade Officers
  Hospital Electricity Supplies
  Hospital Electricity Supplies
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
ENVIRONMENT
  Railways (Finance)
  Railways (Finance)
  National Bus Company (Italian Service Application)
  National Bus Company (Italian Service Application)
  Seat Belts (Invalid Drivers)
  Seat Belts (Invalid Drivers)
  Inland Waters
  Inland Waters
  London Transport
  London Transport
  M18, Armthorpe-Hatfield
  M18, Armthorpe-Hatfield
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
WALES
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Doctors (Dispensing)
  Doctors (Dispensing)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
TRADE
  Export Credits (Taskers Trailers, Andover)
  Export Credits (Taskers Trailers, Andover)
  Lonrho Ltd.
  Lonrho Ltd.
  Timber (Imports)
  Timber (Imports)
  Sterile Water
  Sterile Water
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Lamp Holders
  Lamp Holders
  Washing and Drying Machines
  Washing and Drying Machines
  Precious Metals
  Precious Metals
INDUSTRY
  Post Office Staff
  Post Office Staff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Theatres
  Theatres
  University Grants
  University Grants
  Teacher-Pupil Ratio
  Teacher-Pupil Ratio
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Vandalism (Merseyside)
  Vandalism (Merseyside)
  Youth Organisations (Ministerial Consultations)
  Youth Organisations (Ministerial Consultations)
  Schooling Costs
  Schooling Costs
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COMPANY LAW)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COMPANY LAW)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Food Supplies
  Food Supplies
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Agricultural Development Fund
  Agricultural Development Fund
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mrs. Asmat Ara
  Mrs. Asmat Ara
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety

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

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the Law of The Sea Conference.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Third Session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference took place in Geneva from 17th March to 9th May. At its close, the chairmen of the three main committees circulated, at the request of the Conference, unified texts on the subjects allocated to their committees. These are intended to serve as a basis for negotiation at the next Session, which will be in New York for eight weeks beginning on 29th March 1976, but no delegation is formally committed by them.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that it is a little disappointing that there should have been this inconclusive result? Is there not a danger that before the resumed meeting in New York in March there may be unilateral action by certain Governments, because while there was wide agreement on territorial and economic limits controversy regarding fishing limits and mineral exploitation was quite evident? Will Her Majesty's Government refrain from taking unilateral action themselves and encourage others not to take it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is certainly our policy and
596
we shall do everything in our power to persuade others to follow suit. We recognise the danger of unilateral action. I would mention that at the closing session in Geneva the President of the Conference, Ambassador Amerasinghe, at the request of the developing countries. appealed to all States not to take unilateral action towards exploiting the deep seabed before the 1976 sessions, an attitude which the United Kingdom delegation strongly supported. As to the "disappointing result of the Third Session ", to quote my noble friend, I do not quite agree. We had hoped for decisions on some of the major issues at the end of the Third Session. Nevertheless, the emergence by agreement of unified texts from the three main committees, which will now serve as the basis for study by all Governments, leading, we hope, to a conclusive conference in March, is a considerable step forward.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, would my noble friend take steps to inform the House if other countries take unilateral action which might affect our interests or might, for example, lead to the very severe over-fishing of the North Sea?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the second answer that the Minister gave, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government have expanded their attitude regarding the function of the proposed international authority in view of the fact that the Third World, and particularly the 49 landlocked countries, reject the idea that the authority should merely license activities but hold that it should undertake them directly for the benefit of the world?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add to my answer to my noble friend on the last occasion that we had an exchange on this matter. We are on record very firmly in favour of an international authority to exploit the actual deep sea-bed resources. We have also indicated our readiness to consider a sharing of the revenues resulting from exploitation of the seabed between the end of the economic zone and the edge of the continental margin for the benefit of the international

597
community. As to the detailed way in which this can be done, whether by licensing or otherwise, I think that that is a matter for further discussion.
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, in view of the declared intention of Norway, for example, to extend her fishing limits to 50 miles and Iceland to 200 miles by the end of the year, could the Minister say whether any bilateral discussions are to take place between Her Majesty's Government and these Governments to try to stave off these decisions until a decision can be taken altogether at the next Conference? It is very important for the future of our own fishermen.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I fully agree, and very much hope that such bilateral discussions can go forward in the next few months.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the length of a coastline is a totally false criterion to apply? Ought not a decision to be reached according to need rather than according to geographical situation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that probably a workable formula combining both concepts and possibly other concepts as well could emerge. Clearly there are problems associated with whether you count all islands, whether inhabited or not. Our view now is that you should count all islands. But these matters, and in particular the point made by my noble friend about the implied interests of underdeveloped countries, are very much in our minds. I think a composite formula will have to be reached before the end of the Conference.

INVALID TRICYCLES: MIRA REPORT
2.43 p.m.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: 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 will instruct the Director
598
of the Motor Industry Research Association to publish their report relating to wind performance of the Model 70 Tricycle, omitting commercially confidential information as was done with their report on noise levels.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in no position to give instructions to the Motor Industry Research Association, which is a body entirely independent of the Government. Reports on tests carried out at the Government's request are the Government's property, but under the standard arrangements for these tests the Motor Industry Research Association's agreement to publication is necessary. As the responsible Minister said in another place on 7th May, it was at the request of the Motor Industry Research Association, made because other makes of vehicle were involved in the tests, that earlier information was limited to a synopsis. The Motor Industry Research Association was entirely satisfied with the accuracy of this synopsis, and that it did not omit any relevant information. Subsequently, the Director of the Motor Industry Research Association prepared copies of the original report, with certain deletions to safeguard commercial confidentiality. These were received by the Department of Health and Social Security on 6th May and the noble Lord will be pleased to learn that a copy was placed in your Lordships' Library on the following day.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware of the enormous pressure there has been to get this report published, and will he confirm that I put down my Question before a copy was placed in the Library? In view of the fact that very few noble Lords have seen this report, which I myself had great difficulty finding today, will he confirm that the report states that the results in every case showed a deflection in excess of the European safety vehicle regulations and twice the recommended maximum value?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, those observations are made, but one must take into account—and it has always been clearly set down—the fact that one needs to have experience of driving this particular type of vehicle and must be aware of its limitations.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, will the noble Lord further confirm that there were no fewer than 283 turnover accidents with this Model 70 recorded in the 1973–74 statistics?
Lard WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord and your Lordships will not feel that I am being unhelpful when I say that I have answered the noble Lord's request about the report being made available. I suggest that the last supplementary question and the previous one—and I do not say this in any way unkindly—are outside the main Question.

THE COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Lord BROCKWAY: My Louis, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary attended the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government held at Kingston from 29th April to 6th May. Thirty-three Common-wealth Governments were represented and the meeting was one of the most important and successful Commonwealth meetings ever held. Much of the time was spent on economic matters and on the problems of Southern Africa, and on both a substantial measure of agreement was reached. My right honourable friend has already presented to the House a White Paper setting out in detail the proposals on primary commodities which he put to his Commonwealth colleagues. The outcome of the discussions on these and other subjects is described in the Communiqué issued at the end of the meeting and published as a White Paper today.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that many of us wish to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the unprecedented success of this
600
Commonwealth Conference and that we regard the Communiqué which they issued—covering nearly every issue in the world, from nuclear arms to Southern Africa and on to commodity agreements—as a model for a foreign policy? Would the Minister agree not only to publish the White Paper but to include this important Communiqué in the Official Report of our proceedings?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall certainly consider how the Communiqué as such can be made available in an accessible form for the House. As to what my noble friend had to say about the unprecedented success of this Conference, I can do no better than personally to draw the attention of my two right honourable friends to the terms of my noble friend's encomium.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the impression arising in several quarters that there has been an attempt to create the impression that the Commonwealth is no longer of any consequence—in the Press and other media, and even in the ranks of politicians on both sides of the political fence—may I ask my noble friend to agree that it is very satisfactory that the Commonwealth seems to have revived and is capable of exerting considerable moral influence, if no other influence, throughout the civilised world?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. There has been a tendency to knock the Commonwealth. This is most unjustified and, indeed, the course of discussion at this very successful Conference was such that one Commonwealth country after another spoke with great enthusiasm of the value of the Commonwealth to their countries and their confidence and hope for the future.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what amount Britain is required to pay in financial assistance to Mozambique after 25th June when that country imposes sanctions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not in a position to give the figures for which the noble Earl has asked. The Communiqué makes it quite clear that the Heads of Government of

601
the Commonwealth are in favour of assisting Mozambique in every way to play its part as an independent country in the effort to secure—preferably by peaceful means—a just and lasting settlement in Southern Africa.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting encouraged the United Kingdom to stay in the European Community and gave no indication of being able to produce an alternative cheap food policy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We did not raise this matter ourselves, but a number of Heads of Government raised it from their own point of view and it was unanimously agreed that the Prime Minister of Jamaica, as Chairman of the Meeting, should issue a separate Statement recording that all the other Heads of Government had placed on record their firm opinion that Commonwealth interests were in no way prejudiced by our membership. The Statement added that many Heads of Government had emphasised that it was of positive advantage to their countries that Britain should remain a member of the EEC. It also indicated that a strong view had been expressed that British membership was of value in encouraging the Community to be outward-looking towards the rest of the world.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate whether the Commonwealth countries are resolved to maintain their independence in contrast to the likelihood that the United Kingdom will lose its independence?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that all Commonwealth countries, including this country—which is a founder member of the Commonwealth—will seek to maintain their essential independence while at the same time welcoming international arrangements such as the Lomé Convention, which is of benefit to all Commonwealth countries.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Hear, hear!
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the talks took
602
place under one of the six main provisions of the Lomé Convention; that is, the stabilisation of export receipts from food and raw materials, secured supplies, improved access to markets and equitable prices? Also, can the Minister say whether, in effect, any consideration was given to another aspect of the Lomé Convention; that is, industrial co-operation? Can he say anything about this, as the EEC has identified 125 transferable industrial activities?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Lomé Convention was hailed as a major achievement during the meeting in question. In particular, the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, were widely and warmly acclaimed. I would add that the Heads of Government were particularly grateful to this country for the leadership it had given in framing the Lomé decisions.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the success of the meeting, as indicated by the Communiqué, is something at which every single Member of this House will rejoice, regardless of Party?
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, reverting to my noble friend's statement regarding the Commonwealth countries' attitude to the European Community, may I ask whether it is not a fact that they began by making it clear that they did not want to interfere in our referendum in any way? Secondly, is it not also a fact that while indicating that their interests were not prejudiced by our memberships, many—not all and not most—said that they thought membership would be of value?
Lord GORONVVY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords, the Commonwealth countries, being independent sovereign States like ourselves, made it quite clear that they did not want to interfere with our decisions, any more than we should with their decisions. It is rather revealing that all the Heads of State at the meeting went out of their way, without any prompting from us, to say that their interests were not prejudiced by our membership. Furthermore, many of them

603
said that a decision to stay in the Community, on the terms that we have negotiated and with the outlook that we proposed to take into the Community, would be helpful to them and that they wished us to stay in.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, during this Commonwealth get-together, there was placed on the agenda the specific point which he has mentioned regarding the EEC and the observations of those countries which are now classified as independent territories? Was there anything on the agenda for debate and discussion by the members of the Commonwealth in regard to the EEC and in regard to what Britain was seeking to do on this occasion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I referred to independent countries and was careful to refer to Britain as one of those independent countries. The question of Britain's membership of the EEC was not on the agenda. Therefore, no mention of it was made in the Communiqué but, after the matter had been raised by a number of Prime Ministers, it was agreed unanimously that the Prime Minister of Jamaica, as the Chairman of the meeting, should make the Statement which he made.

WAR WIDOWS PENSIONS
2.59 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: 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 steps they propose to take to relieve the hardship on widows, living solely on the standard war widows pension, who as a result of the recent Budget are now required to pay income tax.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the best step any Government can take to relieve hardship on war widows is to increase their pensions. This Government have increased the standard war widows pension by almost 50 per cent. in the past year. This compares with an increase in the retail price index of just under 20 per cent. in the same period. This
604
increase in pensions has to be borne by taxpayers and, in so far as war widows are taxpayers, they must bear their share.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, I should indicate that I sit on the Scottish Council of the Royal British Legion. Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the last Budget, the war preference—the small additional pension which a war widow receives as compensation; or, rather, as I prefer to call it, a memorial to her husband's sacrifice—is no longer covered by the personal allowance and is thus reduced by taxation from £3·40 to £2·69 a week which, I submit, is quite unworthy, and will the Government take action to make this war preference tax free?
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords. Tax exemption gives more to the better-off. Increases in pensions give more to the less well-off. The latter is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, may I, as President of the Devon branch of the Royal British Legion, ask the Minister whether he would not agree that the United Kingdom, having failed to give a lead in the matter of exempting war widows pensions from income tax, should now gladly follow the enlightened example of such countries as—and I give them in alphabetical order—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa and the United States of America?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I could also give a list of those countries which do not exempt these pensions from tax, and all it would prove is that different States have different methods of taxation.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while there is appreciation of all that has been done for the pensioners, there are terrible anomalies in the tax area? Is he also aware that I have a cousin—
Several Noble Lords: Why not!
Lord BLYTON:—who serves in the school meals service with a wage of £7·10 a week, and a widow's pension of £11·10, and that out of that £7·10 a week there

605
is tax deducted of £2·45? Does the Minister not think that something ought to be done in relation to tax for such people, especially as my cousin has to pay £5 a week for a council house and does not have any rent rebate?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my noble friend has brought us to the real issue, which is not whether the war widows pensions should be exempt, but whether the personal allowances for income tax are adequate. My right honourable friend was able in the Budget to increase the personal allowance for single persons by £50. He regretted that in the present economic circumstances he could not do more. The probability of some increase in the personal allowances is obviously in his mind, and that would be the real cure for this problem.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm, as is stated in the Question, that the recent Budget now means that standard war widow pensioners have to pay income tax for the first time? If that is so, how does he justify it?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would not quite accept that. I suggest that it is the unprecedented increase in the pension that has caused these war widows to be liable to tax.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all the ex-Servicemen's associations in the country appreciate what this and previous Governments have done for the ex-Servicemen, but they have all placed in the forefront of their campaigns the widows of their fallen comrades? At the present moment they are hurt at the new tax anomaly which has occurred in the case of the war widow.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if someone's income increases by 50 per cent. and she is then caught by taxation, I cannot accept that that is an anomaly. It shows that the Government have been very generous in their consideration of the war widows.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree, after having heard so many noble Lords speak in favour of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Cathcart,
606
that it seems that this noble Upper House wants further action on this matter? Also, would the noble Lord bear in mind that when I was in another place I never thought that war widows had as much attention paid to their claims as they ought to have had, irrespective of whichever Government were in power? I should like something further done now in relation to the point of view which has been so adequately expressed by this Upper House today. May I have an assurance on that account?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, some months ago the present Government took the same view as the noble Baroness and increased the pensions by 50 per cent. She is speaking rather late.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: No, I am not.
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, in view of the very strong expressions of opinion in this interchange, and the fact that it appears that the standard war widows pension is now being taxed for the first time, will the noble Lord undertake to bring the exchange expressed in this House to the personal attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows of the noises being made. But I shall certainly direct his attention to what has been said. However, what I have said remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that we have now been dealing with Questions for 26 minutes. If I may say so upon coming back after a week's absence, your Lordships have not reformed very much; you still make statements rather than put questions. I hope that the House will now agree that we should move to the next business.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will repeat a Statement on employee participation in the control of companies.
CORN EXCHANGE BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON TRANSPORT (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a and passed.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Consolidation Bill. As the Long Title indicates, the principal Act consolidated is the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923, which itself consolidated, with amendments, a number of enactments dating as far back as 1861. Since 1923 the law relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries has been altered by two separate classes of legislation.
First, there has been a series of Acts relating specifically to this subject, most notably the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1972, which made substantial changes in the rules about close seasons and introduced new schemes of offences and penalties, and of fishing licences. Secondly, since 1923 there have been shifts in the responsibility for the administration of the laws relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries. In 1923, the administration was shared between Central Government and a number of Fishery Boards, which were small local bodies. Since then there have been successive transfers of the responsibility, and since April 1974 fisheries functions have been exercised by the new Water Authorities set up under the Water Act 1973. This Bill consolidates these various enactments and repeals certain obsolete and superfluous enactments. It will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

REFERENDUM ORDER 1975
3.8 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) rose to move, That the Draft Referendum Order 1975, laid before the House on 8th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. If the Act itself was skeletal, the Order certainly goes in the opposite direction. I cannot, however, pretend that what is now supplied in volume is necessarily matched by readability: the greater part of this Order is complex and highly technical. Nevertheless, I believe the approach adopted is the right one. It follows the precedent set for the Northern Ireland Border Poll, and I think that the method of listing the provisions applied and writing out only the modifications makes for brevity and clarity. The people most directly affected are the returning officers and their staffs who will be responsible for running the poll. They are familiar with the existing electoral law. What they want to know is in what respects it is changed for the referendum. The procedure followed in the Order serves to draw immediate attention to the changes.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government and, indeed, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, of saying a word of thanks to those who will have the responsibility for carrying out the work involved in the referendum. We know the increasing burdens falling on local authority staffs and the special problems caused by the coincidence of local government reorganisation in Scotland with the period when the preparatory work for the referendum will be in full swing. Indeed, I drew particular attention to this latter problem during the Committee stage of the Referendum Bill. But I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that in our consultations with the local authorities we have met with a great deal of co-operation from all those concerned, both from those who will be exercising the functions of returning officers and those who found themselves, at fairly short notice, shouldering the burden of counting the votes in an entirely novel way.
To return to the Order itself. The I general principle has been to apply all

609
of the ordinary electoral law which is relevant to the conduct of a poll, modified as necessary. It has not for example, been necessary to apply any of the provisions concerning candidates, their agents, expenses and nomination, since there are, of course, no candidates. The absence of candidates has, however, produced one complication in that many of the controls imposed in the electoral law on various activities are drafted in terms of things done to "promote the election of a candidate ". For all these references it has been necessary to substitute a reference to things done to "promote a particular result at the poll ". Your Lordships will see that this substitution, or a variation of it, accounts for a substantial number of the modifications made in the Schedules to the Order.
The Order consists of seven substantive Articles and two Schedules, Article 1 provides that the Order will come into operation as soon as it is made. The Privy Council is meeting tomorrow and, provided the Order is approved by your Lordships and in another place today, it will be made at that meeting and come into operation forthwith.
The next two Articles deal with interpretation and the application and construction of the provisions specified in the Schedules. Article 4 fixes the date of the poll, 5th June, and the hours of polling. Article 5 enables my right honourable friend to make arrangements for observers, and Article 6 deems absent voting facilities granted for an election to be valid for the referendum, with the exception of proxies appointed for members of the Armed Forces and their spouses, for whom special comprehensive voting arrangements are being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence under Article 7.
In the Schedules the most important provisions are the modifications made to the Parliamentary Elections Rules to
610
provide for the method of counting the votes. These will mainly be found in the Rules substituted for Rules 45 and 46. My Lords, I do not think I need trouble you with a fuller recital of the contents of the Order which are essentially technical. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Referendum Order 1975, laid before the House on 8th May, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, we in this House have had a very full general debate on the Referendum; we have had a Second Reading debate on the referendum Bill; we have had a fairly full Committee stage on the Referendum Bill; and now we have before us the Referendum Order which the noble Lord the Minister of State has moved and has explained the terms lucidly for our understanding. My own feeling is simply that we have had our say and there is nothing to be said. The Order that he is concerned with is simply a piece of mechanism; it is concerned with the nuts and bolts of the referendum procedure. Now that the Government have abandoned their original concept of holding the central counting in London and have decided to hold the count in varying places, I have nothing from which to dissent in the noble Lord's explanation of the referendum procedure. It seems to me that they are creating a rod to beat their own back. I am sure that they are doing it very efficiently, and it is not for me to add to their difficulties in any way. I will simply say that so far as I am concerned we now all go our separate ways so as to ensure on June 5th the result of the referendum which each one of us wants to secure. I can only express the hope that the opinion expressed in the vote by a vast majority of your Lordships will be echoed on June 5th, and that we shall continue to remain Members of the Community.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL ROAD HAULAGE PERMITS BILL
3.15 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Carriage on United Kingdom vehicles, and production of international road haulage permits.]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from (" journey ") to (" unless ") in line 17 and insert—

(" (i) for or in connection with the carriage or haulage of goods either for hire or reward or for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by the user of the vehicle; and

(ii) either between a place in the United Kingdom and a place outside the United Kingdom or, if the journey passes through any part of the United Kingdom, between places both of which are outside the United Kingdom; ").

The noble Lord said: The Automobile Association have expressed concern that, as drafted, the Bill could apply to caravans and other trailers in which goods may be carried when these are drawn by private cars. There is no such intention. Permits are required only for the commercial operation of goods vehicles on international journeys. The Amendment is designed to clarify the position by the introduction of terms which are already familiar because of their use in Section 60(1) of the Transport Act 1968 in relation to operators' licensing. I beg to move.
Lord CHAMPION: It will be seen that all the Amendments set down are set down in the name of a Minister. Clearly, they have the backing of the Department concerned. I have gone through the whole of them rather carefully because I am in charge of the Bill, at least theoretically; and having regard to the fact that they
612
are so well drafted I accept them so completely that I do not propose to make a speech on every Amendment as it is moved. I hope that the Committee will accept that and will accept also the Amendments when they are moved by my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"Power to prohibit vehicle or trailer being taken out of the United Kingdom
.—(1) If it appears to an examiner:

(a) that a goods vehicle or a trailer is being used in such circumstances as are specified in subsection (2) of section 1 above, and

(b) that, without reasonable excuse, the driver of the goods vehicle or, as the case may require, the person in charge of, or the driver of a vehicle drawing, the trailer has refused or failed to comply with a requirement under that subsection,

the examiner may prohibit the removal of the goods vehicle or trailer out of the United Kingdom, either absolutely or for a specified purpose, and either for a specified period or without limitation of time.
(2) Where an examiner prohibits the removal of a goods vehicle or trailer out of the United Kingdom under subsection (1) above, he shall forthwith give notice in writing of the prohibition to the driver of the goods vehicle or, as the case may require, to the person in charge of, or the driver of the vehicle drawing, the trailer, specifying—

(a) the circumstances in consequence of which the prohibition is imposed,

(b) whether the prohibition applies absolutely or for a specified purpose, and

(c) whether the prohibition is for a specified period or without limit of time,

and the prohibition under subsection (1) above shall come into force as soon as notice thereof is given under this subsection.
(3) Where an examiner is satisfied, with respect to a goods vehicle or trailer to which a prohibition under subsection (1) above relates,—

(a) that the goods vehicle or trailer is being used on a journey to which regulations under section 1(1) above do not apply, or

(b) that there is carried on the goods vehicle or, in the case of a trailer, on the vehicle drawing it or by a person in charge of it a document of a description specified in those regulations,

he may remove the prohibition and, where he does so, shall forthwith give notice in writing of the removal of the prohibition to the driver of the goods vehicle, or as the case may

613
require, to the person in charge of, or the driver of the vehicle drawing, the trailer and the prohibition shall cease to have effect on the giving of that notice.
(4) Unless the person to whom a notice is given under subsection (2) or subsection (3) above is the person using the vehicle concerned, as soon as practicable after such a notice has been given, the examiner who gave it shall take steps to bring the contents of the notice to the attention of the person using the vehicle.
(5) In the exercise of his functions under this section, an examiner shall act in accordance with any general directions given by the Secretary of State.
(6) Any person who, without reasonable excuse,—

(a) removes a goods vehicle or trailer out of the United Kingdom in contravention of a prohibition under subsection (1) above, or

(b) causes or permits a goods vehicle or trailer to he removed out of the United Kingdom in contravention of such a prohibition,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(7) Subsections (8) and (9) of section 1 above shall apply in relation to this section as apply in relation to that."
The noble Lord said: As drafted, the Bill provides for imposition of fines, on summary conviction, on persons using vehicles without permits, when these are necessary, and on persons who refuse or fail to produce such permits at the request of an examiner. Despite these provisions there is nothing to stop a vehicle from being taken abroad on a journey for which permits are required, and in cases where a forged permit is being used it is more than likely that the persons concerned would merely withhold production of the forgery until the frontier of the foreign country concerned was reached. Any fine incurred would be regarded simply as an added expense to be taken into account in assessing the charge for the journey. It is important to prevent vehicles from embarking upon international journeys without valid permits and thus to avoid the many problems which have arisen all too often in foreign countries as a result of use of forgeries.
To achieve this objective it is necessary to prohibit vehicles from leaving the United Kingdom if they do not have the necessary permits. The haulage associations agree in principle. However, unlike the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972, there
614
is no question of detaining the vehicle or prohibiting it from being driven on roads within the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) provides that an examiner may impose such a prohibition. It also ensures that in exercising his powers he should be able to use his discretion as regards the extent and duration of the prohibition. Sub-section (2) requires an examiner who imposes a prohibition to give details of it in writing to the driver or person in charge of the vehicle. This is comparable with Section 1(5) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 and Sections 57(2) and 57(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The prohibition will come into force forthwith. Subsection (3) deals with removal of the prohibition. This may be effected by any examiner provided he is satisfied either that a valid permit for the journey in question has been obtained and is produced to him or that the vehicle is no longer to be used on a journey for which a permit is required. The latter circumstances may arise where, for example, the load is changed to one falling within an exempt category or the place where the goods are to be unloaded is changed to one in a country which does not require British goods vehicles to have permits. Notification of removal of the prohibition must be given in writing by the examiner to the driver, or person in charge, of the vehicle and the prohibition shall cease to have effect forthwith. This is comparable with Section 2(3) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972.
Subsection (4) requires the user of the vehicle, if he is not the driver or person in charge of it, to be notified when a prohibition has been imposed on or removed from a vehicle. This is necessary because it is the "user", as referred to in Clause 1(8), who is responsible for matters relating to the operation of the vehicle both in the United Kingdom and on international journeys. Subsection (5) provides that, in exercising his functions under this section, an examiner shall act in accordance with any general directions given by the Secretary of State. This is similar to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 and Section 57(11) of the Road Traffic Act 1972.
Subsection (6) makes it an offence to remove a goods vehicle, or cause or permit it to be removed, out of the United Kingdom in contravention of a prohibition

615
imposed under subsection (1). The fine of up to £200 would be additional to those provided for in Clause 1(3) and (4). This provision is important in order to deal with any unscrupulous persons who seek to evade a prohibition notice, for example, by taking the vehicle to a port other than that from which it was intended to embark. Finally, subsection (7) applies to this section the construction and definition set out in Clause 1(8) and (9). I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for explaining this rather complicated Amendment to us so lucidly. It is generally agreed that these stringent measures are necessary to help stamp out forgeries. If we do not do this, we shall wring our own necks; we have to do this for the sake of our transport operators working in Europe. I should like to have the noble Lord's assurance that operators will not be too heavily impeded in their normal business in transport. This is a worry which has occurred to some of the haulage associations. I am sure it is very far from the Government's intention to impede them, and the three transport associations with whom I have been in touch have agreed that these measures are necessary. They obviously do not like this new clause, but they like even less the false "cowboy" operators and are willing to suffer this knowing the object of the exercise. But there is still a doubt at the back of their minds, so may we be assured that they will be hindered no more than is necessary?
Lord MELCHETT: I am sure we can give the noble Lord that assurance. I am perfectly certain that examiners will be very alive to the need not to impede legitimate traffic. It is a question of striking a balance between stamping out the practice of using forged permits and allowing road hauliers to carry on their business.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application of Transport Act 1968 and Road Traffic Act 1972 to international road haulage permits]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 40, leave out (" paragraph ") and insert (" paragraphs ")
The noble Lord said: With permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. Using a vehicle in contravention of a prohibition imposed under Clause 1A, is a serious matter. In practice, the situation is likely to arise only when forged permits are being used, but conviction for such an offence, in addition to attracting a fine, should put the operator's licence at risk whether or not he is involved in the use of forged permits. This Amendment will add conviction of an offence (under Clause 1A(6)) of contravention of a prohibition notice to the grounds on which a licensing authority may revoke, suspend or curtail an operator's licence. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
(" (eee) a conviction of the holder of the licence or a servant or agent of his under section (Power to prohibit vehicle or trailer being taken out of the United Kingdom) of the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975 ".")—(Lard Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Application of Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 to international road haulage permits]
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These Amendments follow, in relation to Northern Ireland legislation, the Amendment to Clause 2 which your Lordships have just passed. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out (" 34 ") and insert "29(1) ").—(Lord Mcichett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, after (" 1967") insert (" (suspension and revocation of operators' or vehicle licences), after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
(" (dd) that the holder of the licence, or any servant or agent of his, has been convicted of an offence under section (Power to prohibit vehicle or trailer being taken out

617
of the United Kingdom) of the International Road Haulage Permits Act 1975".
(2) In section 34 of that Act").—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1974 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1975.
3.27 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the Draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuation) Order 1975, laid before the House on 1st May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the circumstances in which the Act was passed. The campaign of bombing in Great Britain which began with the planting of car bombs in London in March 1973 continued intermittently throughout 1973 and 1974. Up to the middle of November last year, 21 people had been killed in bomb incidents in Great Britain and 570 injured. Then, on 21st November last year, there were the bomb explosions in two public houses in Birmingham. Twenty-one people were killed, and nearly 200 injured. As a result of these bombings, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided to introduce the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. This, with the co-operation of all Parties, passed through Parliament in a matter of days and became law on 29th November.
It was never envisaged that the Act could put an end to terrorism. If legislation could have achieved that, my right honourable friend, or one of his predecessors, would have introduced it much earlier; what the Act did was to confer on the Home Secretary and on the police certain exceptional powers which it was thought would prove useful against terrorism. The powers, or some of them, are in some degree contrary to our traditions and would not have been thought
618
acceptable except in the extreme situation which faced us at that time.
My right honourable friend has made it clear that he does not regard the Act as a legitimate permanent part of our legislation, and its provisions lapse six months after it came into force—that is to say, on 28th May this year—unless they are renewed. The effect of the draft Order before your Lordships is to continue the provisions in force for a further six months from that date.
It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to allow the Act to lapse as soon as it is safe to do so. But that time has not yet come. The ceasefire in Northern Ireland is fragile; and until the situation is more stable we cannot afford to relax our precautions. I need only remind your Lordships that on 26th February this year a police officer—Police Constable Tibble—was shot dead in Hammersmith, and that subsequent police investigations led to the discovery of what was plainly an IRA bomb factory. We must assume that plans exist for the resumption of terrorist activities in Great Britain if the ceasefire comes to an end.
There are four main groups of provisions in the Act and your Lordships will wish me to explain the use that has been made of each. Sections 1 and 2, which constitute Part I of the Act, deal with proscribed organisations. Section 1 makes it an offence to belong or profess to belong to a proscribed organization, to solicit or provide support, in money or otherwise, for a proscribed organisation or to arrange or address a meeting on behalf of such an organisation. Under Section 2 a person commits an offence if in a public place he wears any item of dress or carries or displays any article in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member of a proscribed organisation. Proscribed organisations are specified in Schedule 1 to the Act. The Act as passed specified the IRA and gave the Secretary of State the power—which has in fact not been exercised—to add to the Schedule.
Successive Governments of both Parties were for a long time reluctant to proscribe the IRA. Our criminal law has traditionally addressed itself to the individual rather than to the organisation, and the proscription of organisations is,

619
so far as I know, unprecedented in Britain in peace-time. But my right honourable friend took the view after the Birmingham bombings that it would be intolerable if it were still to be lawful to belong or profess to belong to the IRA, to collect money for it or to display support for it in public by banners or by other means. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act are not themselves designed to prevent terrorist acts; they are designed to prevent affronts to the British public, and in this they have been successful. I do not believe that the time has yet come when it would be right to allow processions or collections in support of the IRA to be resumed.
I come now to Part II of the Act. Under Sections 3 to 6 the Secretary of State is empowered, if he is satisfied that a person is concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting or may attempt to enter the country with a view to being so concerned, to make an exclusion order against that person. The effect of an exclusion order is to prohibit the person against whom it is made from being in, or entering, Great Britain or, if he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, from being in or entering the United Kingdom.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made 50 exclusion orders. Forty-three of these were served on the person concerned, and 11 people exercised the right to make representations objecting to the order. These cases were referred to advisers nominated by my right honourable friend, and after considering their reports he revoked five of the orders. In two other cases representations have been made and the cases are outstanding. Thirty-eight of the orders have been enforced, and 21 people were removed to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Irish Republic. Seven of the exclusion orders were not in fact served. In five of these cases the person concerned is believed to be outside the United Kingdom. In the other two cases the person concerned was charged with murder and my right honourable friend revoked the orders before they were served.
The exclusion order procedure is in some respects a distasteful one, and I need hardly say that my right honourable
620
friend exercises the most scrupulous care in its application. The nature of the evidence in these cases is such that it cannot be made public and, as was made clear when the Bill was introduced, there can be no question of open proceedings or the public presentation of evidence. One special safeguard for people against whom an exclusion order is made is provided by Section 4. A person who objects to the order may make representations to the Secretary of State, who must then refer the matter for the advice of one or more persons nominated by him. As has been announced, the Home Secretary has nominated the noble Lord, Lord Alport—and I am glad to see that the noble Lord is with us this afternoon—and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse to advise him under this section. We are most grateful to them for the time and care they have devoted to this task.
It was never intended, of course, that the exclusion order procedure should be used instead of criminal proceedings where such proceedings would normally have been instituted. Exclusion orders are designed to be used where proceedings in court cannot be taken, for example because of the sensitivity of the evidence. The powers in Sections 3 to 6 of the Act have enabled my right honourable friend to keep out of Great Britain—or in some cases the United Kingdom—a small but significant number of dangerous men and women. In present circumstances it is impossible to allow these sections to lapse and these people to return.
I come now to the final two sections of the Act to which this Order relates. First, Section 7: this empowers a constable to arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a person guilty of an offence under Sections 1 or 3 of the Act, a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or a person subject to an exclusion order. A person arrested under Section 7 may not be detained for more than 48 hours, but the Secretary of State may extend this period to a total of seven days in any particular case.
The object of this provision is to enable the police to hold people whom they have good reason to believe are involved in acts of terrorism but whom they cannot immediately connect with specific offences. It enables the police to make inquiries and check police records in order to

621
establish whether there is evidence on which specific charges can be brought or, if not, whether there is evidence on which it would be right for the Secretary of State to make an exclusion order. A total of 355 people have been arrested under this power, and in 91 of these cases my right honourable friend authorised extended detention for a period of up to seven days. In 27 cases my right honourable friend signed exclusion orders and the persons concerned were removed. In 13 cases the person concerned was charged with criminal offences. A high proportion of the people arrested under Section 7 would have been arrested under normal police powers if the Act had not been in force. What the section does is to strengthen and extend police powers of arrest in relation to suspected terrorists. It has been fairly extensively used, and with positive results, and it would be helpful to the police to retain it.
Finally, Section 8: under this section the Secretary of State may by order provide for, among other things, the examination of persons arriving in, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland, with a view to determining whether any such person appears to be a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, whether any such person is subject to an exclusion order, or whether there are grounds for suspecting that any such person has committed an offence under Section 3(8) of the Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made an Order under Section 8 immediately the Act came into force. This Order confers powers on examining officers (who in Great Britain are, in practice, normally constables) to examine travellers and to arrest and detain them if necessary. The powers are similar to those conferred on immigration officers by the Immigration Act 1971.
Ever since the car bombs were planted in London in March 1973 the police have maintained a high level of surveillance at ports dealing with the Irish traffic. The surveillance is easier and more effective if the police carrying it out have statutory powers and do not have to rely solely on the co-operation of the public, however readily that co-operation may generally be forthcoming. This work at the ports is essentially preventive, as indeed is the Act as a whole, as its name implies.
622
Eleven people detained at the ports have subsequently been made subject to exclusion orders and removed, but, quite apart from this, the presence of police officers at the ports acts as a considerable deterrent to the movement of terrorists and their equipment. For the present, we need to keep this surveillance as effective as possible, and for that purpose the powers in the Order made under Section 8 are still required. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he would not wish the Act to remain in force any longer than is necessary, but he is satisfied that it would be premature to give up now the additional powers which the Act confers and which the experience of the last six months has shown to be valuable. Accordingly, I ask the House to approve the Order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) Order 1975, laid before the House on 1st May, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.40 p.m.
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, I think it is right that the House should put aside some time for a short debate on the Prevention of Terrorism (Continuance) Order. The House was reminded by the Minister of State that the original Act was introduced six months ago following upon a horrific atrocity committed in Birmingham and against a background of a rising tide of violence. By the time the Act was introduced something like 40 people in Great Britain had been killed—and this of course does not include Northern Ireland—and some 700 people had been injured. It was beginning to bring home to us in this Island, although to a much lesser degree, something of the aspects of ordinary everyday life in Northern Ireland. The House will remember that the original Bill was introduced in a great hurry, with very little notice. All its stages were passed through another place in one day, and indeed the debate continued until a very late hour at night. Although I was not present, I understand that the principle of the Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House before the Bill had been presented to your Lordships, and all stages—Second Reading, Committee and Report stage—were taken formally" on the nod "the next day.

623
The original Bill was taken in this very remarkable manner partly because of the strongly expressed wish by the Government to reinforce the powers which they required so as to maintain law and order in the country, and partially, I believe, because at the time both among the public at large and among Members of both Houses of Parliament there was a strong desire to vote on the Bill and get it through without embarking on widespread discussion. But it is correct as a general principle that the introduction of legislation in great haste, against a background of a violent sense of outrage, can be an unsound base on which to frame it. This is particularly the danger when the legislation affects the civil liberties of individual people. Of course, the rush to get the Bill through last November, and the very great sense of indignation which existed in Parliament, was a reflection of the danger which was being posed by terrorism towards this country—an extreme danger which existed then, and which I believe exists today. Because of that danger we supported the Bill in the House last November. We support the continuation Order today.
We are in fact engaged in a war against terrorism which is being undertaken by criminal gangs marked by their inhumanity and their ruthlessness, and society must have the power to fight this war and, indeed, to win it. In some ways the Act certainly affects the liberties we have been used to having in this country in peace time. This is particularly true of the power, to which the Minister referred, to exclude people from Great Britain. It is also true of the power of the police under this Act to detain a person for questioning for a period of 48 hours, and, if the authority of the Secretary of State has been obtained, to detain a person for seven days. I agree with the Government that such a power of exclusion is not a legitimate permanent feature of legislation in this country. Although it is undoubtedly an infringement of liberty, its purpose is to protect a much greater liberty, namely, the right of ordinary people to go about their business and live their lives in peace and safety. For that reason we do not hesitate to support the Order which has been presented to us.
624
Nevertheless, there are questions which should perhaps be asked before we allow the continuation Order to pass. I believe that there is no need to rehearse the arguments for the Act. In general the Act has struck the right balance. We saw the long sequence of events—Aldershot, Guildford and Birmingham, the explosion in the Tower of London, the horrifying destruction of a bus on a motorway and explosions in the Chelsea pubs. We saw a horrifying sequence of events, and too frequently it seemed to the public that the murderers were getting away with murders of people who were utterly innocent of any conceivable offence—utterly innocent even in the eyes of the murderers themselves. It simply is not tolerable to sit back and wait for fresh crimes to he committed before a Government can step in to stop them. The time came last November for the State and the authorities to take the initiative to hunt down suspected terrorists; to find them, to prosecute them where possible, to imprison them and, if necessary, to exclude them where it is not possible to obtain a conviction in a court of law. I think it was necessary for the State to take these powers so that it could fulfil the fundamental responsibility of any State; that is, to protect people from murder and to protect property from destruction. In very difficult circumstances, I think the right balance has been struck by the Government. They have to find a balance between, on the one hand, taking in peace time the necessary powers to wage a war against terrorism, and on the other hand preserving, so far as they can, the rights and liberties of individual people.
But if we are going to allow the Government these substantial powers, far greater powers than had ever been allowed to a post-war peace time Government, then it is right that we should have every six months, as we have had today, a report from the Government as to how effective the legislation has been. It seems to me that an Act like this can only be justified if it is working. We have to judge it on its pragmatic effect, to judge whether it is in fact curbing terrorism. I thought that the Minister in giving his report indicated at least a measure of progress. He listed a number of persons who have been detained and a number of persons

625
who have been excluded. Certainly he did not embark rashly upon any promise that we are about to see the ending of terrorism in Great Britain, but the general impression created by his speech was one of advance that was to some extent heartening.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First of all, if I understood aright, he said that nearly 400 people had been detained under the Act. May I ask whether this has resulted in criminal convictions being secured? Here I am not so much meaning criminal convictions of the individuals who have been detained and questioned; but whether the result of the questioning has been that the police have obtained information and been able to secure convictions against other criminals and other terrorists.
This new power must be used with great care because presumably the over-whelming majority of people who are being detained tend to come from the Irish community within Great Britain. If the new powers were used carelessly, there could be a danger that the Irish community might feel that the Act is directed against them. This of course is far from the truth. The Irish community overwhelmingly in Great Britain, and in Northern Ireland, consists of people of the very greatest sense of loyalty. They share with every other section of the community a sense of shame and horror at what is sometimes being done by others in their name. Indeed, we must appreciate that success in the war against terrorism will, to a large extent, rest with the good will and support which we obtain from the Irish community in Great Britain.
Secondly, I would ask whether the police themselves feel that they now have all the reasonable powers—obviously not excessive powers but reasonable powers—which they need to fight the campaign against terrorism. We have mentioned the power of detaining a person for 48 hours, or alternatively, where the authority of the Secretary of State has been obtained, the power to detain a person for seven days. Other powers are given to the police; for instance, the power of search. When obtaining a warrant they can search houses where they believe that terrorist material is stored or being made. Indeed, in an emergency a senior police
626
officer can undertake a search on his own authority without obtaining a warrant from a justice of the peace. This is a major and an important power, but I believe that in the circumstances it is necessary. I should like to ask the Minister—because the success of our efforts against terrorism will depend on the police—whether he can say, not only that the police are satisfied with the powers they are given but that their strength is adequate and that it is growing in numbers.
Clearly, the roots of this problem lie in Northern Ireland, and only when the people of Northern Ireland can learn to live together in peace will this appalling tragedy come to an end. I personally do not believe that political concessions—political appeasement—or constitutional devices such as conventions or assemblies or power-sharing, all of which are completely necessary in constitutional terms, will have much effect on the mentality of the kind of people who have committed these atrocities in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland. What they want to do is to create such hatred of the name of Ireland in this island that the people of Great Britain will want to be rid of it and withdraw the military forces who are there to defend law and order. The kind of terrorists and gangs we are having to deal with will not be affected by constitutional change. They will be brought to heel, curbed and halted only by very skilled police work. They will be curbed only when there are adequate numbers of police and when the organisation is really good. They will be curbed only when the intelligence system, which not so long ago was very effective in this island but which appears to have faltered in the last year, has been rebuilt. Let us make no mistake; to rebuild it requires great courage by a number of persons serving in the police forces.
I want to ask a further question. What has been the effect of proscribing the IRA? There is no doubt that the public has been heartily glad not to see on television those pictures of scenes of self-glorification by the IRA. They were the grossest affront to people in this country. People were gravely offended by the parades, by men who dressed up in bizarre fashion to create a sinister impression by wearing berets and dark glasses. The public were offended by seeing funerals of IRA members turned into

627
political demonstrations. They were offended when drinking in pubs to find that money-raising campaigns were being conducted to raise money to shoot down soldiers. But proscription of an organisation is, so far as I know, unique in post-war history in this country. When I was concerned with Northern Ireland in a Ministerial capacity, certainly, all the advice we received at that time—it was before any terrorism had developed in Great Britain—was that the balance of advantage lay against proscribing the organisation. For reasons of public concern, a decision has been taken to proscribe the IRA, and I should like to ask whether the police are satisfied that this has been a step in the right direction.
Finally, I would turn to what undoubtedly is the greatest infringement of liberty. This is of course the power to exclude a person from Great Britain. In practice it means deporting him either to the Republic or to Northern Ireland, where presumably many of the persons would be detained. I understand from the Minister that 21 persons have been excluded and deported to Northern Ireland and 17 have been excluded and deported to the Republic. This must have been an extremely difficult decision for the Government to take. It certainly caused offence in Northern Ireland, where it has appeared to create an impression that we are weakening as a result of terrorism—we are weakening in our concept of the indivisibility of the United Kingdom. It must have been an extremely difficult decision; I am certainly glad I did not have to take it myself. I am bound to add that I fully support it now that the Government feel it is necessary to take it. Terrorism has spread out from Ireland and, if it is to be eliminated, it must be contained in as small an area as possible. None the less, I think the noble. Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will not think that I am in any way unconstructive when I say that this is an aspect of the Order which we shall have to look at very closely every time it is renewed. We wish to support efforts to curb and eliminate terrorism, and I have no hesitation at all in supporting the Government in this grim necessity of reintroducing the Order for the prevention of terrorism.
3.59 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Balniel, for having made a characteristically helpful and constructive speech on what is a crucially important question relating, as he rightly says, to the liberty of people in Great Britain to live their lives in safety. That was the purpose of the Act passed last November, and it is the purpose of the Order before your Lordships today. Before coming to the detailed points he has raised I will say only this. I think it is right that the Executive should be made to justify swingeing powers of this kind which raise fundamental questions of civil liberties. As my right honourable friend said in another place when the Act was introduced, he would certainly have hesitated to introduce legislation of this character unless an extremely grave situation existed in this country. That was the situation which confronted us in November of last year when there occurred the terrible bomb explosions in Birmingham, leading to such widespread loss of life.
If I may, I will deal now with the detailed questions which the noble Lord, Lord Balniel, has raised. He asked about the powers under Section 7 of the Act. As I endeavoured to point out in my speech, as a result of the powers under Section 7,355 people were arrested, and in 91 of these cases my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agreed to give to the police the extension of powers for which they asked; namely, to commit these people into custody for a period of between 48 hours and seven days.
The noble Lord asked whether these powers were of significant help to the police in obtaining information. Indeed, they were. Obviously, it is difficult to quantify and to say that in so many cases it led to the conviction of the guilty or, as it did in some cases, to exclusion orders being made against others. Nevertheless, it was of great benefit to the police to have this intelligence. It did something to strengthen our powers to protect people in this country from the effects of terrorist outrages.
The noble Lord asked, secondly, whether the police consider that they have adequate powers. It is extremely

629
difficult to answer on behalf of every police officer who is dealing with IRA terrorism. By definition, on many questions they have almost as many opinions as politicians. However, it is right to say that as I have Ministerial responsibility in this particular area, I spent a substantial amount of time, both at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year, in talking in particular to port units of the police who, as I indicated in my speech, are involved in the surveillance of the Irish traffic, both at airports and seaports in Great Britain. I think I am right in saying that I can recall no considerable body of opinion among the Special Branch and other officers who are involved in this matter that they wanted additional powers. They took the view then, and they take the view now, that they have adequate powers. This Act confers real and significant authority upon them, and I think they are gratified that the House has given these powers to them. I do not believe that there is any significant body of evidence to suggest that they think that these powers are inadequate.
To return to Section 7 and the question which the noble Lord asked, one of the great advantages of seven-day detention orders—whereby, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, people who are suspected of terrorist offences can be kept in custody for up to seven days—is that it takes a significant amount of time to make fingerprint checks and to carry out certain forensic tests on evidence. Substantial numbers of these people have been arrested following major terrorist attacks in this country. To take just one example, a significant group was arrested following the murder of Police Constable nibble in Hammersmith.
The noble Lord then came to a fundamental point; namely, the strength of the police. If we confer additional responsibilities on the police, it is obviously essential that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the police are adequately up to strength, particularly in the forces which have to deal with a great deal of this work. The House will be pleased to know that in the last four or five months there has been a gratifying improvement in police manpower. A number of forces
630
are still substantially under strength, as in London, in particular. The Metropolitan Police force is still heavily under strength, and it would be foolish for any Home Office Minister to give any impression other than that the manpower situation in London remains, highly unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, even in London, in the month of April—the last month for which we have figures—for the first time there was a significant improvement. In the four months up to the end of March there was an increase of 1,065 men in the net strength of the police. I think this is an important improvement. It has greatly assisted a number of the forces who are having to bear the brunt of carrying out the obligations conferred on them by Parliament. It has given them a great deal more power to deal with these particular problems. For the first time, it is an encouraging indication of the success of some degree of Government policy. Also, I am bound to say that a fairly significant improvement in police pay at the end of last year had some part to play in this improvement in the police manpower situation. Nevertheless, for the first time for a significant period there has been an improvement in the police manpower situation, and I am sure that the House will be glad to know of it.
I will end as I began, by admitting that the Government are asking for substantial powers. However, I think that what I have said today and what has been said by the noble Lord who followed me has indicated the seriousness of the problem which still confronts us in countering IRA terrorism in Great Britain. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will agree to the continuation of these powers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that the Statement which I announced after Questions will not be made today.

AIR TRAVEL RESERVE FUND BILL
4.7 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency]:
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("include") and insert ("be").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and, with the leave of the Committee, will also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The reason for these Amendments is to try to discover the intentions of the Government in the drafting of subsection (4) of Clause 1. It appears that the Agency shall include representatives of the Civil Aviation Authority, representatives of the travel industry and consumer representatives. However, the use of the word "include" leads me to wonder in what proportions these three sets of representatives would be found upon the Agency. Therefore, in seeking in Amendment No. 1 to amend the word "include", I am asking two questions. First, what size of Agency does the Secretary of State envisage; and, secondly, what proportion on the Agency will these named representatives provide?
The two other Amendments which I am also asking the leave of the Committee to discuss, change the word "and" in lines 9 and 14 to "or". As I understand the existing wording, representatives of those who are providing travel facilities could possibly also be members or officers of the Authority. Certainly those who are representing consumer interests or the travel trade could be representatives of the Authority. Therefore, I am seeking to find out whether the Government intend that those described in paragraphs (a) and (b) and in lines 14 to 18 will be
632
entirely separate appointments. I have sought to try to make the intention of the Amendments absolutely clear by rewording the provision covering consumer representatives in lines 14 to 18.
Without wearying the Committee, as this is the first Amendment may I say that this Agency will be a new body, and I think it will be common cause on all sides of the Chamber that it will have a most important function. It will be the guardian of very substantial sums of money levied from air travel companies, and will be empowered to draw on £15 million of Government money—so far as we know, interest free. So the air travel organisers will have the major interest in the sound running of the Agency, because it is they in the first instance who will pay the levy. As is only proper, the Authority will be able to make the rules within which the Agency will operate, and in a consumer protection Bill there is provision for consumer representation. I doubt whether the existing wording actually requires these three interests to be quite separately represented on the Agency, and it is for this reason that I have also asked for leave to speak to Amendments 2 and 3. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord BESWICK: I appreciate the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I am happy to think that I can probably help him in getting a picture of the sort of persons who would compose this Agency. May I say first that there is obviously a little difficulty in getting words to express exactly what one wants. I believe there is nothing between us as to what we want, but there must be some difficulty in using the English language, because, although I know what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wants, what he says in these Amendments is that we shall have persons from the travel trade, or we shall have persons who travel, or we shall have persons from the Civil Aviation Authority. That, I am advised, is the effect of having "or" and "or". What he wants is something rather different from a body composed of the travel trade, or of persons who travel, or of persons from the Civil Aviation Authority. So the words do not secure what he is seeking.
As for the general picture of the Agency, it is intended to be a fairly small and compact body. I was going to say

633
on a later Amendment that we anticipate the Agency will possibly number seven persons, of whom the chairman would be an independent member. Three of the other six—in other words, a half—would be from the travel trade and the other three would be appointed by the Secretary of State, to include a representative of, or someone specially qualified to represent, the consumer interest. I think one would possibly need someone with accountancy qualifications or some knowledge of investment, or something of that kind. I believe this would give the balance that is needed and I hope it is the sort of balance that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his friends would agree is about right.
Lord HAWKE: I was not quite clear when the noble Lord was giving the list. Did he say that three of these persons should be representative of the interests engaged in the provision of travel facilities and three should be from some other source, or did he say three from the Authority?
Lord BESWICK: What I said was that there would be representation of the CAA, the travel trade and the consumer interests, possibly. Three of those would come from the travel interests.
Lord HAWKE: I am not quite sure where the people from the Authority come in. I do not quite see the necessity for them, and the noble Lord does not seem to have mentioned them.
Lord BESWICK: They would be included in the other three.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Would the representatives from the travel agencies be nominated by the travel agencies themselves, or would the choice be left to the discretion of the Minister?
Lord BESWICK: The intention is that they would be nominated after consultation with the Association of British Travel Agents.
Lord BELSTEAD: If I may say so, I think the noble Lord has been extremely helpful. I was not entirely certain that we would be told by the noble Lord that he expected (and I hope I have now got this right) there would be three persons from the travel trade and three other persons, including consumer interests and
634
he Authority, and also—I have forgotten the third one.
A Noble Lord: The chairman.
Lord BELSTEAD: And the chairman. I am so sorry; may I say it again? As I understand it, there will be three persons from the travel trade, and three presumably representing consumer interests and the Authority, as well the the Secretary of State's appointment of the chairman. As I understand it, that is what the noble Lord has said and I think it is extremely helpful. Perhaps I may be forgiven for just repeating it and, without appearing to be too bone-headed, pointing out that the noble Lord has not answered one question which was, in a way, my worry. Is there still going to be overlap? Perhaps I may explain what I mean.
As I understand it, the Civil Aviation Act most certainly lays a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to represent consumer interests. I am afraid that I am not very well informed about the Act, but one has only to glance at Section 2 to see that there has to be assistance and information provided by the Authority; and one has only to glance at Section 3 to see these there is a duty upon the CAA to secure that British airlines provide air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand. Therefore, I think one can be forgiven for saying that, of course, the CAA has a consumer interest; and, indeed, the chairman and his staff do their utmost, as I think both Houses of Parliament know, to promote that interest. Similarly, air travel organisers and travel agents also have a consumer interest. Good heavens!, if they did not they would soon be out of business. I think that many of us who take licensed travel and package holidays have good reason to know that they, too, do their best to secure that they are acting in the public interest.
Therefore, may I repeat this question? Although the noble Lord has given us some very useful information, does he envisage that under the present wording—which is what the Amendments arc seeking to change—someone in the three who were representing the travel trade could also represent the consumer interests? The consumers might find themselves not represented by the

635
other three, because the Minister would say, "I am looking at my nominations and I think you are already very well represented ". Is there an overlap? I should like to end with an apology. I think that in replying again the noble Lord may say to me that what I am in danger of doing is talking about rigid representation upon a board or an agency, and that this is something the Government do not like. I do not like it either, but I think that when one starts to set up agencies and boards it is something that one simply cannot avoid.
Lord BESWICK: I shall not accuse the noble Lord of doing anything untoward, because I think he has been very reasonable. I think I can give him a quite categorical assurance that those three persons of the six who constitute the Agency under the chairman will be from the travel trade and none of them will be held to represent the consumer. It is perfectly true that a good exponent of travel business may well say that he has the consumer interest in mind. That is so, but so far as this Bill is concerned and so far as this Agency is concerned he will be there because he understands the problems of the travel trade. Within these three I may also add that I hope we can arrive at a proper balance as between the different categories of firms some who operate and some who do not operate aeroplanes; those who are engaged in the package business specifically and those who are possibly in another section of the travel trade. I think it would be feasible to get a fair representation from the three, and as I have said, the Association of British Travel Agents will be consulted. Then, when we come to the other three I hope—if it is possible to get such a pristine character—we can get some consumer representative.
Lord CLITHEROE: May I ask who will represent the consumers? I have travelled by air since 1920, when I first moved from Paris to Croydon. I have travelled every year since and still travel many times a year, but I have never yet come across anybody who appeared to represent the consumer. I have many observations I should care to make to anyone who represents the consumer, but I have never been told of any organisa-
636
tion to whom I should make those representations.
Lord HAWKE: It would seem that the noble Lord has not been listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
Lord BESWICK: I was going to suggest, if I may say so quite kindly, that if the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, came more often to the House, I am sure he would hear the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and notice her claims to represent the consumer.
Lord CLITHEROE: I beg the pardon of noble Lords. I did not know that the noble Baroness represents the consumer. I will certainly make contact with her.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(" Provided that not less than one-half of the members of the Agency shall be appointed by the Secretary of State as appearing to him to be representatives of the interests of persons engaged in the United Kingdom in the provision of travel facilities to members of the public.")
The noble Lord said: In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, I shall certainly not press this Amendment. However, in order not to keep the Committee too long, may I briefly make three points. First of all, this is an Amendment about which the travel trade in general, both operators and travel agents, feel very deeply. They naturally feel that in regard to such matters as deciding on the application of the Fund under Clauses 2 and 3, seeing that the new arrangements arc understood, making the annual report to the Secretary of State and giving advice on Clause 6 about the future of the Fund, they should have a proper representation on the Agency.
The noble Lord in his reply on the previous Amendment gave an undertaking. I accept that undertaking and am not going to press this Amendment, but may I, just for the record, say that I was grateful to him for saying, in answer to one of my noble friends, that the Government would take into account the fact that the travel trade does not mean just travel agents or just travel organisers. I would particularly ask that the right

637
honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should take into account those who in the first instance will actually pay the cash, namely, the air travel organisers. Although they pay the cash, it is true that the travel agents will be collecting the cash from the customers. I do not think I either want to or should say more on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and, subject to what he may wish to say in reply, I intend to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord BESWICK: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. May I add this, so that there is no misunderstanding between us? Reference was made in another place to not less than one half of the members of the Agency being representative of the travel trade. However, I should make it clear that there is no difference between that and what I said, because in the other place the reference was intended to apply to the six members under the chairman. Having made that clear, and it being accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I think there is nothing between us. In fact, we are doing what lie wishes us to do. So far as the three are concerned, it is the intention, in discussion with the Association of British Travel Agents, that there shall be a proper spread of those three so that all sections of the industry are reasonably represented.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert (" otherwise than as a customer as defined in section 2(2) of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: We come now to an Amendment which relates to the office of chairman of this new Agency, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. The purpose of the Amendment is to make that office more tolerable, more possible to be more efficient, and also to ensure that the chairman is not excluded under Clause 2(2). We believe that this is a slip of the draftsman's pen, because as the Bill stands drafted, under Clause 1(5),
638
"The person appointed chairman of the Agency shall be a person who is neither—

(a) a member of the Authority or an officer of the Authority or of the Department of Trade, nor

(b) in any way associated by way of business with persons engaged in the provision of travel facilities as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above."

Our Amendment proposes to add the words as printed—
" (" otherwise than as a customer as defined in section 2(2) of this Act.")"
The reason for our apprehension is that the chairman of the Agency under Clause 1(5) may not be "in any way associated by way of business" with air travel organisers of any sort. This really is a prohibition. As Clause 2(2) makes the point that a customer of an air travel organiser is someone who enters into a contract, and by that we understand is meant a person who purchases a ticket or goes into some package arrangement with the air travel organiser or air firm, the inevitable conclusion is that the chairman would be "associated by way of business "if he ever became such a customer. Therefore, our Amendment would save the chairman this embarrassment. The second point is really in association with this. What evidence do the Government have that entry into a contract is not being "associated by way of business "? I think that what we propose would make the office of chairman more tolerable. We believe the Amendment is worth while. If we can be assured that it is unnecessary I will, with pleasure, withdraw it.
Lord BESWICK: In a way, we are up against a problem referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe—this "rare bird" who is a consumer. The definition here is someone who is a consumer but is nothing else, and such a consumer is becoming difficult to come by. When I first saw this provision I said to myself, "How can you get an independent chairman? Independent of what? "If this chairman was completely independent of modern life, which surely involves flying about occasionally, he would be someone we should look at in a glass case. However, I am assured that in fact, when we come to the wording and the legality of the situation, Clause 1(5)(b) would not prevent a person who had booked a package holiday from serving as chairman of this Agency. I am assured that that would be only a contractual relationship

639
as a customer and not a business association with the company or the interest concerned. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will accept that as giving him what he wants, without amending the Bill. I might go on to say that the existing clause was intended to exclude, for example, members of banking and financial institutions which have a direct interest in travel companies and who would therefore be held inappropriate as chairman. As things now are, I give the assurance wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that if a person flies around occasionally on holiday he will not be considered disqualified as chairman.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, shows himself to be a realist. One understands the problems of trying to find this "rare bird", as he called it. I do not think he can do much about the particular point that I want to make, but I think it would be a good thing to have it on the record. The words "in any way associated" are very wide and include a lot of things within the net. It could well be that a man who ought to be chairman, who has all the qualifications required to carry out the task, may have shares in a company which is a subsidiary and which has some connection one way or another with these travel agencies. We know that these days there are journalists who feel it their duty to try to probe and present the dark sides of things when they do not really exist and who could latch on to the very clear words, "in any way associated ", in a way that would make it unpleasant, to say the least, to the person to be appointed chairman. I do not think the noble Lord can do much about it, but I do not think it does any harm at all to have on the record that this possibility of a deliberate misrepresentation of a very remote contact is realised, and it may help to let it be seen that it has been thought of at this very early stage.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord has said and I understand why he has said it. But I am advised that the wording would not preclude the type of person we all have in mind as a suitable chairman. I would go on to add—because I have lived with this question of the consumer for such a long time—that I
640
would not be at all surprised if, having found this very special category of person and made him the chairman, somebody accused him of being a consumer.
Lord SANDYS: With the assurances the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has given, I should like in a moment to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but first I should like to associate myself most warmly with the remarks of my noble friend. It occurs to my noble friend Lord Belstead and me that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may wish to reveal the name of the chairman he has in mind for this role. In the circumstances, I think we ought to allow ourselves a further opportunity at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill for representations on this important question of the appointment of the chairman. Nevertheless, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Rules for the payment of benefits from the Fund]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.33 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I ask the noble Lord a question. The very last subsection of Clause 3 deals with the duty of the Agency to supply copies of the benefit rules. I wondered whether this might be an appropriate moment to ask the noble Lord what the situation is to be about informing ordinary members of the public, who go to travel organisers and travel agents to make their bookings for package holidays, whether or not they are covered. In essence, what I am asking is, what kind of advertising will be done, what kind of advice will be given to the ordinary man or woman going into a travel agency as to whether the booking they are making is supported by this second line of defence, which the Fund, under the Bill, is to provide.
Lord BESWICK: I confess I am not readily able to say exactly what will be done in this regard. Certainly some assurance will have to be given. As of now, of course, the agent or the operator will

641
say that he is a member of the British Association of Travel Agents, or he will say, and this is held to be relevant, "licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority as an operator." They are not at all slow in saying that they are covered in this way. I should have thought that anyone selling something would make certain that the prospective customer was made aware of the fact that this cover was provided by the Bill. At a later stage I will clarify if anything has been done, but I rather suspect that we have not got as far as that at the present time.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not want to appear to make a cheap point. I think those who have read the Bill are aware that it is not totally straightforward; it is not easy for the person who does not readily understand the licensing arrangements to realise what is definitely covered. I have found from reading the report of proceedings in another place—and, indeed, the noble Lord referred to the matter on Second Reading—that, of course, all scheduled flights are not covered. I do not cavil at this at all. I understand that ITX flights, individual excursions, are not covered, and I understand that part-charter is not covered and that group-inclusive tours are not covered. I must admit that already I am in realms that I do not understand. I simply do not understand what the last two mean. Therefore, I think there is reason to ask the Government this: when one walks into one's travel agent how is one to know whether or not one is covered? If there is to be a Report stage, we will be having it fairly soon after the Committee stage. I wonder whether I might possibly raise this again on Clause 7. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has put down an Amendment about flights to the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. Perhaps it might be convenient to the Committee if I raised this matter again briefly under Clause 7.
Lord BESWICK: Certainly, but I do not think there is very much more I can say, except that I am now informed that the Department of Trade will be publishing a leaflet explaining both the degree of cover and who is covered. I would have thought that would go some way to help. Looking at it almost from the outside, it seems to me that here we are imposing on the travel trade certain
642
obligations; indeed the noble Lord, quite rightly, voiced apprehensions as to whether we were not placing upon them too onerous responsibilities. If they have to accept those responsibilities by law, I am quite certain that the travel agents themselves will ensure that their prospective customers are aware of the extent to which this cover is now made obligatory by law. I shall be very surprised indeed if the travel agents and the other bodies involved do not see to it that their prospective customers are well aware of what is to be done in the future.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am not at all happy about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, explained, there are quite a number of what the travelling public would regard as package holidays which are not covered by the provisions of the Bill. I think the time to tell the customer whether or not he is covered is at the point of sale in the travel agents' shop. I hope the noble Lord will be able to consider this matter more deeply, and perhaps we can raise it again, as my noble friend suggests, on Clause 7. I think there is a gap here, and I hope the noble Lord will consider it carefully.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: May I add that I think it is good advice which is being offered to the noble Lord. Those that are covered we need not bother about. But, in terms of administering this, it is those who are not covered, but who might think they are, who will create much administrative trouble for the people who will have to administer this. I think it is very worth while at this early stage to make it quite clear in regard to those who are not covered as well as to those who are. Those who are covered will at the end of the day receive compensation. I think it is worth the extra thought at this stage, when the public is first aware of this facility, to make quite clear exactly where the matter begins and ends.
Lord BESWICK: I accept that the advice that is being given from all quarters is good advice; all advice given in this House is good advice. But I wonder whether I might be given a little longer than Clause 7 to consider it. What passes through my mind is that, if I were to accept what is now being said, we would have to engage in publicity to tell some

643
people that they are not covered; yet the passenger is dealing with perfectly reputable people offering a perfectly safe, economic, splendid service. If we go out of our way to give them a public warning—as on a cigarette packet—that they are not covered by this insurance, I can well see that would be arousing doubts where no doubts should be aroused. This just occurs to me as I sit here. But, if I may be allowed to discuss with advisers what is involved, what the Association of British Travel Agents intend to do, because they will be interested in this, at a later stage of the Bill I can come back with a little more helpful response to the helpful advice that I have had.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Contributions for the purposes of the Fund by air travel organisers]:
4.41 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 4, at end insert—
(" ( ) Sums payable in respect of contributions from air travel organisers to whom this section applies shall be paid by instalments at intervals of not more than three months and no such sum shall be payable before 1st September 1975.")
The noble Lord said: May I first make clear what this Amendment does not seek to do. It does not oppose the payment of levies under this Bill; it does not attempt to oppose the retrospective payment to be made under this Bill, and it does not alter the principle of having to pay in advance. What the Amendment seeks to do is to try to achieve the Bill's objective without putting too great a burden on air travel organisers by dealing with two problems. The first problem is the arrangement of forward payments at six monthly intervals, to which I referred on Second Reading. To be issued with an air travel organiser's licence a company has to put up a bond. I do not think that there is any argument about the desirability of this for anyone who is connected with licensed air travel. Indeed, the Tour Operators' Study Group introduced voluntary bonding in 1970, and it has always been the intention that bonding should in fact cover the possible liabilities of a company to the people it is carrying. The difficulty is that in the
644
space of a year the bond has been doubled, from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. of forthcoming turnover for companies. So before an air travel organiser can actually carry passengers there is the expense of a licence, and the doubled expense of the bonding to be met.
In addition to those two items there is the levy to be paid at 1 per cent. and then, next year, at 2 per cent. six months in advance. Just to give a simple example, an air travel organiser with an annual turnover of £50 million will find himself having to put up £2½ million extra as a result of the bonding increase in the last year. Then, in addition, next April, if one was to take, as I am advised would be reasonable, £34 million as being the turnover for the forthcoming six months, that firm would have to find £680,000 in cash; and then, if you take £16 million as being the winter turnover, another £320,000, again in cash. Today, when everyone in business is in the greatest difficulty, these cash payments for the levy will be quite difficult to find. They are, in a sense, a tax on firms, because they are to be paid in advance. Therefore, the first part of this Amendment provides for quarterly payments, and at more frequent intervals if the Secretary of State so wishes.
The Amendment also provides for the first levy payment to be on or after 1st September of this year. My reason for including that is that if the first payment is demanded immediately this Bill becomes law, two things may happen. First, firms will have to find the money very hurriedly indeed, and secondly, so far as I can see, by levying surcharges at the airport. Because the Bill, in Clauses 2, 4 and 5. to which we have now agreed, specifically excludes from the levy anyone travelling between 6th February of this year and the date of Royal Assent, it would be improper for firms to commence raising the extra money needed for the forthcoming levies while Parliament is deciding whether the Bill should become law. Of course firms have not been doing that. That means that they will have suddenly to impose the levy, probably by surcharging at airports. I understand that this is a practice which was all too familiar last year, and which the Airports Authority has asked to be discontinued. I suggest to the Committee that this procedure can be avoided

645
if firms are given a reasonable period of time before the first contribution to the Fund has to be made. The submission I make to the Government is that not earlier than 1st September of this year would be appropriate. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: I wish to support the Amendment. As these levies are to be made in advance—and at best are on best estimates—it would be helpful for the organisations to have these payments made quarterly on smaller amounts rather than half-yearly on bigger amounts. Further, if the first payment is to be made after 1st September the organisers have a little time to get a little cash into the kitty—bearing in mind the great difficulties these days for what is known as "cash flow"—through the receipts from this year's summer traffic. Therefore, I very much support this Amendment.
Lord SLATER: Would it be asking too much of the mover of the Amendment to be more explicit as to why he has fixed on 1st September?
Lord BELSTEAD: I understand that payments for package holidays are normally made eight weeks in advance. I must admit to the noble Lord that I asked the ABTA organisation what effect this would have on their payment of the levy. The reply I received, which seemed to me reasonable, was that they would want at least two months, and what they would like for collecting the levy was three months. They feel that this is absolutely necessary. Assuming that this Bill receives Royal Assent about 1st June or, as I hope, a little earlier, I fixed on not before 1st September of this year.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: This is a concession which is absolutely essential. The purpose of this Bill is not to penalise the travel agents; we all know that it is to try to deal with a problem that has shown itself in recent years and which reacts unfairly on the travelling public, particularly at holiday times. When you get down to the practicalities involved, in these days, when liquidity is a problem with very wealthy firms, to put an impost in the way that at present would be put upon them, may well result in driving them out of business.
646
Who carries that amount of liquidity nowadays if they are running their businesses properly? If they have their reserves invested in order to carry them over the difficult times that have to be met at various times of the year, to force them into a position where they would have to sell their investments, possibly at a time when the market is not right, would be an impost upon a well based legitimate business which I know it is not the intention of the noble Lord or his colleagues in the Government to put upon them. It would seem, if the suggestion made by my noble friend is accepted, that the funds would certainly be available to meet any claims that might be made upon them while, at the same time, at the end of the day not injuring in a fundamental way (which the present wording would do) the people whom we want to be successful in carrying out this travel facility for the people of this country.
Lord TREFGARNE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Belstead in this Amendment. There are two points that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will bear in mind. I fear that he will not agree with them. First, air travel operators, like many other businessmen, make-their arrangements in advance. They have entered into contracts with their customers. To have to go back to the customer just a few days or weeks before he is to enjoy his holiday, although no doubt provided for in the small print, is very distasteful. Of course they have had to do it in the past because of currency fluctuations and other things. However, I hope that the Government will at least be able to dispense with such an action, which is so very unsatisfactory and which, as my noble friend Lord Belstead said, the British Airports Authority are now deprecating. I do not suppose that the BAA are aiming specifically at the practice of surcharging holidays, but rather against the practice of collecting the surcharge at the airport, and if he is not to collect the surcharge at the airport it is difficult to see how the tour operator can do it at short notice. This Bill provides for the compensation of those customers of the Court Line Group who last year suffered financial injury. I hope the noble Lord will be able to remove from my suspicious mind any thought that this

647
early start to the levy is to provide funds for that purpose.
Lord SANDYS: I too support my noble friend Lord Belstead and others of my noble friends who have spoken in support of the Amendment. We feel most strongly about this. One cannot say "cash flow" more than once from this Dispatch Box, but I feel that this is a very important matter, to which the Government's attention has been drawn by those who have spoken on this subject. Our interest, and indeed our suspicions, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, were aroused initially by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Shore, on Second Reading in another place when he said that the contributions would commence,
"… within a few weeks of Royal Assent … and are likely to be at the rate of 1 per cent …"—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/75; col. 1582.]
This gives rise to great anxiety. We want to ensure that the travel trade has a very good season this year and it would allay our great anxiety about this matter if the Government would accept this Amendment.
Lord SLATER: All the speeches that have been made by noble Lords opposite appear to have been concerned solely with the travel agency, and some have spoken of the operator as a sort of charitable organisation. They seem to have forgotten that without any customers the travel agent cannot operate in accordance with the regulation, and it seems that the customer has been left out of the picture altogether. I urge noble Lords opposite to accept that thought should be given to the customer, to how he is to meet his commitment to the travel agent for the holiday on which he is to embark, and, through the agent, the tour operator who is to take him to and from his destination.
4.53 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: I wish first to answer the suspicion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Unless I am a very innocent character and I have been misled, there is absolutely no question of levying these contributions in order to evade any responsibility in connection with Court Line. That we can eliminate from the discussion altogether. I give the
648
noble Lord that assurance. My noble and helpful friend Lord Slater is the only noble Lord who has mentioned the word "regulation". The Bill does not provide for any contributions at all, as to date or level. This will be done by regulation and I suggest that if there is a serious anxiety here about the timing of the first contribution, it should be done when the regulation is laid before the House because it will be necessary to lay it before the House. Because we do not know when the Royal Assent will be received to this Bill—it is receiving a very helpful passage here and I hope it will not be delayed—it would be a mistake to provide for 1st September or any other date in this Bill. The actual date when the first contributions will be made should properly be in the regulation when the measure is on the Statute Book.
I come to the question of liquidity. If there is an emotive word in the English language I would say that it is "liquidity", and my heart bleeds when one begins to talk about it. I am listening to people talking about this wretched problem nearly every day now, so I am full of sympathy when it is said that we must have regard to the liquidity of the companies engaged in the travel trade. To some extent we have made a concession here to meet this very point. First of all, there will be the loan from the Government. The trade is not being asked in the first place to provide all the money that has reasonably to be put aside for contingencies. A very sizeable sum will be coming from the Government, precisely because we recognise that there will be this liquidity problem in the first instance; and it is only in the first place so far as this Amendment is concerned. That one has to pay at quarterly intervals does not mean that one pays any less. But having swallowed the pill initially and paid for six months, one then has twice as long as one would have under this Amendment to save up for the next contribution. Therefore, only this first contribution is involved.
The Government have tried to be helpful by more or less accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. They have said in this case, "Because there are difficulties, let us halve the rate." The noble Lord wanted to do it by making two separate contributions, whereas we were proposing to do it by halving the

649
rate and having a 1 per cent. levy first of all and a 2 per cent. levy later on. I understand the problem that the noble Lord is trying to meet, but I hope that having studied that aspect, he will accept what I have said, in the first place because the matter will have to come up again as a regulation and, secondly, because if he looks at the arithmetic he will find that we have met his point, but in another way.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Your Lordships' House does not very much like retrospective legislation of any kind, but it dislikes far more retrospective regulations. We are entitled to be told in broad terms what the regulations will provide because, if I have understood him, the noble Lord is proposing here that payments should be made in respect of travel arrangements made this year in this current season.
This will therefore mean that the regulations will already be retrospective, to a certain extent, to cover arrangements that have been made for accommodation and services this year. Is this correct? If so, that would mean, in turn, that in the first stage, if a later date is put in the Bill, as my noble friend suggests—and the noble Lord did not say that there would not be a later date; he did not say whether the date would be earlier, later or even on 1st September—what will happen plainly is that the loan will cover the payments for the first period until the Bill comes into operation. Is this correct or will there be retrospective payments even before the Bill becomes law? These are the kind of questions I have in mind. I understand that some travel agents have already been making it clear that their customers will be covered in the current year. Is this so? Is this what has been arranged and, if so, how will it be financed?
Lord BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked me to give an indication. This is only an indication, but if the Bill went through this House and did not require to come back for amendment, I would calculate, drawing on my previous experience as a business manager, that it might get the Royal Assent by the end of May, before we rise for Whit-sun. We are to rise a little early, anyhow, and that is another difficulty, but it is conceivable that we should get the Royal
650
Assent by the end of May, in which case the regulations would be laid in June and the first contribution would, I expect, become due on 1st August.
Having said that, however, it is only an expectation, and if, for example, we had even one Amendment and the Bill went down the corridor and had to come back here, it could make two or three weeks' difference. It is conceivable that we should then require the first contribution to be made later. For technical reasons, which others in the Committee probably understand better than I do, it might be necessary to put back the date to October rather than September. If one has intervals which bring one of the payments into the middle of the travel season one runs into other difficulties. It is hoped that the payments will be made either in April, at the beginning of the season, or in October, at the end. If they became mixed up in the middle of the season, there could be problems. That is the best I can offer by way of assessment of the likely dates but, in any case, we shall have to lay regulations, and I shall consider all that has been said at that time. The House will be in a position to take a decision when the regulation is laid.
Lord DRUMALBYN: With great respect, I do not think the noble Lord has answered the major question. Is it the case that, under the Bill, it is intended that contracts made for this current season will be covered? If so, when will contributions in respect of that start to be payable? I notice that my noble friend's Amendment says:
" no such sum shall be payable before 1st September ".
He might have said, "payable in respect of any period occurring before 1st September ". The Committee would like to know when payments are to start so that an assessment can be made of the impact on the travel organisers. If I am right in thinking that the travel organisers have been advised that these arrangements are to cover the current season, perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether they have also been advised to take into account the payment they will have to make under the Bill. Have they been advised to take that into account or, in other words, have they already increased their charges to cover the payment?
Lord BESWICK: I should like to try to get rid of some of the uncertainty here. The noble Lord asked me whether a person travelling before 1st August would be covered. He said that he understood that certain travel agents were already assuring their clients that they were covered. Of course they are covered, and that applies not only to persons who are to travel this month or next month but—thanks to the agitation of various people—to persons who travelled last year. They will be covered. That is one reason why there will be a loan from the Government to cover those persons who travel before the first contributions are made.
The second element in this matter is the responsibility or liability of the agent. If the Bill proceeds according to the time-table I have described, they will be liable as from 1st August, but their liability would then be only in respect of persons travelling after 1st August. That seems to me an eminently sound bargain, and I do not think that we could criticise it.
5.5 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: I should like to put four points to the noble Lord, Certainly, he has tried to help us, but our difficulty is this: the noble Lord has given full answers to various of my noble friends and other noble Lords who have spoken, but the familiar cry goes up that what the noble Lord says in this House is not, effectively, legislation. It certainly is not regulations which, of course, can be only either agreed to or disagreed to. That is my first worry.
My second worry arises from what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said. I wonder whether the air travel organisers have really taken on board in consultation with the Government what the Government intend—which is what the noble Lord has just said at the Dispatch Box is to be the fact—and whether the banks will carry them in this matter. It seems a long time ago, but when I was moving the Amendment I gave an indication of the truly gigantic sums of money which will be asked for from air travel firms in the very near future. It is the sole purpose of the Amendment to see that a reasonable length of time is taken to allow those sums of money to be accumulated.
652
On this point, as I understand what the noble Lord has said, there will be an element of retrospection. I certainly do not disagree with that, but the effect of the Amendment is to ask that payment shall start later. I am comforted by the fact that there is £15 million of interest-free Government money which will underwrite the whole operation. When one bears in mind that the Policy-holders Protection Bill which the noble Lord introduced less than a week ago will not require any payments to be made until there is an unfortunate occurrence and remembers that under the present Bill £15 million of Government money is to be made available, one cannot quite see why the first payment of levy should not be put off until on or after 1st September.
Without being tedious, I should like to support what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said about liquidity. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, I felt that he perhaps thought that the Amendment was a plea on behalf of shaky firms. Recently, I heard that one of the largest—perhaps, indeed the largest—of the travel organisers in this country has guaranteed that holidays three months in advance will be at a fixed price. My goodness me!, that is something to be thankful for at this time in our national life. In doing that, however, that firm has to be able to estimate what will be the costs of, for instance, landing charges, fuel and exchange rates. To extract one of those three elements, imagine the difficulty of that firm in trying to estimate exchange rates at the present time. I feel, bearing that example in mind, that the effect of the Amendment is worth while.
Finally, the noble Lord put the point to me that, as one cannot be sure when the Bill will become law, one cannot be sure whether I have chosen the right date. However, as my noble friend kindly reminded the Committee, the effect of the Amendment is modest. It is simply that the first payment of levy should not be made before 1st September. But-tressed by £15 million of Government loan, I think that this would he reasonable. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to look with favour on the Amendment.
Lord BESWICK: I look with favour on the principle underlying the Amendment, but I say again that the Bill does not provide for rate or dates. Those will be provided for in the regulations. I cannot see how, without getting into difficulties, we can amend the Bill on these matters when elsewhere in the Bill we have provision for regulations. I re-emphasise that we have, in effect, accepted what the noble Lord wants; that is, we have agreed that the first contribution will be a smaller one than any actuarial estimate would suggest. We suggest here—and, as it happens, we have taken the 50 per cent. cut which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is suggesting—that we make it more effective over a longer period than three months. We are suggesting that, in the first place, the levy should be half what it will be in the subsequent year. Surely that meets the point which the noble Lord is making.
As for the difficulties the companies are experiencing, I recognise these and sympathise with the companies as much as does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I know only too well what their difficulties are. But they are not being asked to make any contribution this year—so far as most of their customers are concerned. Not until 1st August—if it so happens that we are able to make the first contribution on that date—will anyone be liable to pay anything at all. This is going to be met by the Government. After 1st August there will be a half rate levy. As I have said, the exact amount will have to be put into the regulation. But it is our intention to meet the very point which the noble Lord has made, about the difficulties in the first year, by reducing the levy and topping up the amount by money from this loan. In that circumstance I hope that the noble Lord will consider on reflection that I have made an effort to meet him.
Lord BELSTEAD: This must certainly be my last word. The noble Lord has certainly done his best to meet me, but in case I seem to be totally unreasonable I should say that I do not think he can really meet me on this point on the. ground on which he stands. I say this for two reasons. First, it is not the rate at which the levy is being paid which is at issue; it is the date. The second reason interlinks with that. Noble Lords who have studied the proceedings in an-
654
other place have noticed that the Government loan, which we come to on a later Amendment, was said to have been interest free. It is now being said by the Government—for understandable reasons; I am not trying to make a political point on this—that the loan will possibly have to bear some sort of interest. It is because of the uncertainties, which one cannot help, and the fact that this means so much to those who will have to pay the levy, that I really must insist on an Amendment which will, at least, give the undertaking to those who are going to pay the levy that they have three months clear in which to find the very large sums of money which the levy will require.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I, too, must apologise for pursuing the point, but I do not approach it from the point of view of this Bill. Those of us who run businesses, no matter how small, recognise that there is something in this problem of liquidity. Even when you are sound and your assets are there, leaving you in a very healthy position overall, to be asked to find this amount of money—however small a percentage of an original levy it may be—is inconvenient to the point of really damaging a company. If a company has to go to the bank to get cover for this sort of thing—which, undoubtedly, it would have to do—it will find that there is all the difference in the world between asking for a three months' bridging loan in anticipation of something that is well understood, and asking for a lump sum, however small a percentage of an original levy, running into the proportions involved. I should like to know what sort of advice the Government will give to the banks? Will this be one of the priorities with which they will expect the banks to help their customers?
Those of us who today go to the banks in order to run our various businesses are told continually that what we propose does not come into the priority class. We are told that what we propose may well be a very good scheme in normal times, and that the bank would like to help us with it, but it does not have the special claim which is needed, due to the stringency of the times. Are the Government prepared to tell the banks that in

655
order to fulfil the obligation under the Bill they are to give that sort of priority?
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that this will come out in the regulation. But I do not think it wrong to emphasise the point now, because I am hoping that the noble Lord will have quite a lot to do with the framing of that regulation at the end of the day. He is one of the most experienced members of the Government and one remembers his experience over many years. I hope, in the light of the arguments put forward today, that the words put into the regulation will perhaps meet some of the points made by my noble friend.
Lord SLATER: I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has taken this attitude, in view of the statement of my noble friend in reply to the speeches on this Amendment. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been very ungenerous to my noble friend, who has endeavoured to commit himself in regard to this matter and has tried to cover the position as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would like it to be covered, in the interests of all parties—not only the operators or the agencies, but the general public as well. I sincerely hope that before the noble Lord thinks for one moment of going any
further—as he seems to be endeavouring to do—he will have second thoughts, because it could rebound and he could meet himself coming back if he pressed his Amendment later.
Lord BESWICK: I am not sure that I can add anything more, but I should like to say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Had I the power to make a regulation now I would, in the light of his kind remarks, write out the most accommodating regulation. But I think he overdid it a little, so far as some of the travel agents are concerned. If the noble Lord reads my Second Reading speech, he will notice that one of the reasons why the industry got into difficulties was not because it had to go to the bank, but because it took so much money in advance from customers. Much of the money on which the industry operates comes not from the bank at all, but from deposits or payments made by customers. We are merely trying to help those customers. I shall look at this question of the three months' notice and see to what extent it is really justified, and perhaps we can come back to it again.
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Allerton, L.

Essex, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gage, V.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stamp, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Harvington, L.

Strange, L.

Courtown, E.

Hawke, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cowley, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Inglewood, L.

Suffield, L.

de Freyne, L.

Kindersley, L.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Vernon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Dudley, E.

Margadale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dundonald, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monson, L.

Young, B.

Eccles, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Auckland, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon, V.

Bacon, B.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Beswick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Brockway, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strang, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Castle, L.

Loudoun, C.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Chorley, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Thurlow, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Newall, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Peddie, L.

White, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, B.

Wigg, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Pritchard, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Garner, L.

Roberthall, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hale, L.

St. Just, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 4 insert the following new Clause—
Scheme for safeguarding customers by insurance &c.
(" .—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority, after consultation with the Agency, to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a scheme under which licensed air travel organisers will be enabled by means of insurance and bonding obligations to make payments to or for the benefit of their customers sufficient to meet losses or liabilities incurred by the customers in connection with overseas air travel contracts or overseas surface travel contracts entered into by the air travel organisers with their customers.
(2) The Secretary of State may if satisfied that adequate provision is made by the scheme for safeguarding customers of air travel organisers in respect of such losses or liabilities and after making in the scheme such modifications, if any, as after consultation with the Authority, he thinks expedient approve the scheme and, thereupon it shall be the duty of the Authority to take such measures as the Secretary of State may direct for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme.
(3) The scheme approved by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of this section may be modified, supplemented or replaced by a further scheme prepared, submitted and approved in accordance with those provisions.
(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the scheme has been made under subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of
658
State shall make an order under Section 6 of this Act for the dissolution of the Agency the winding up of the Fund and the disposal of the assets standing to the credit of the Fund.")
The noble Lord said: The effect of this new clause would be ultimately to give air travel organisers the option of insuring instead of paying the levy. In essence, this new clause lays a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare a scheme under which air travel organisers will be able, by bonding and by insurance, to make future provision for their possible liabilities to customers; and the scheme would need the approval of the Secretary of State. I think that the need for the new clause is twofold. First, there is a case for not multiplying statutory agencies and boards. This Bill is presented by the Government because last year's disasters called for some action to be taken; but I think we delude ourselves if we believe that wherever there is a business risk it must always be underwritten by one's competitors. I should have thought that would lead to lazy management, and possibly risky management as well. I should not have thought that our country could afford either at the present time. On the available evidence this Bill is quite an expensive creature. It is going to involve advance payments by air travel firms, by customers and by the Government; and the Agency has to have its activities serviced and its expenses paid.
Will this new clause in any way damage the Bill's intentions? I think the answer is, No. It will not damage retrospective

659
payments to those who lost their holidays last year. Obviously, the Fund will have to be built up by the air travel organisers contributing for a time. I would suggest to the Committee that under subsection (1) of the new clause the CAA would not prepare the scheme for introduction until the Fund could at least be in sight of repaying the loan for last year's failures. The main principle of the Bill, that there should be full financial assurance for air charter travellers, will be upheld by the new clause. The scheme will be an amalgamation of bond and insurance.
The reason why this new clause is being put forward is that the result could be cheaper. In the other place, as your Lordships may be aware, a cost of 35 shillings for insuring a £100 holiday was given. The Government may have more up-to-date figures than I have; but what is clear is that next year's travellers will find themselves paying £2 a head extra, or probably more, in order to cover their holidays. I think that this is worth looking at again. The Government said on Second Reading in the other place that they would do just that. I hope the length of time that has elapsed has allowed them not only to look at the principle of insurance coming after the Bill has come fully into operation, but has also led them to agree with that principle. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment, because it gives an opportunity to the Government of winding up this statutory Board, this agency. I am quite sure it is a view shared on many sides of the Committee, save perhaps on the Government side, that we should look to a future situation in which there are fewer agencies and not more. The proposal as drafted in this clause is an imaginative one, casting forward the situation to what it will be in two or three years' time when the immediate intention of the Agency has been achieved. This gives an opportunity for a review of the whole procedure of unwinding a board and setting it aside. As regards the cost-effective point which my noble friend Lord Belstead made, it is almost axiomatic in present circumstances that this is a highly desirable end and one we should look to if there is a small margin at the present time between what the traveller, the customer, will pay in present circumstances, as proposed in the Bill,
660
and the circumstances in two or three years' time. One must look to circumstances in which the cost of this Agency must inevitably rise because of Parkinson's law.
5.30 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: It is unwise to talk about encouraging lazy management. Anybody who knows anything at all about this business will know that management have to be on their toes if they are going to remain in business this year and next; competitition is going to be acute. To say that anything in the Bill is going to make management lazy is going beyond any remarks that noble Lords have made so far this evening. At Second Reading I expressed some sympathy with the conception that the development of the licensing arrangements and the general improvement of respectability and stability in the trade could lead us to the point when the Agency would be no longer required. I am absolutely certain that under the wise guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we shall see licensing systems become more and more sophisticated and the chances of any unstable person getting a licence to operate will become less. But we have not reached that point yet and therefore we must have this safety net.
The Amendment says that the Civil Aviation Authority should do certain things, including making provision for surface travel; but the CAA will have no power to carry out obligations put into this Amendment, and to that extent I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Amendment is inappropriate. He says in the Amendment that he wants to have an insurance system. If that were possible, it might be encouraged, but all the information available at the present time indicates that the insurance industry is unlikely to make available across the board to all companies, large and small, doubtful and less doubtful, the kind of insurance arrangements that will be required in the present period. We may develop into a situation where everything is much more stable; in that case insurance companies can probably come up with a policy. The noble Lord would find that if he tried to get insurance companies now to provide equal cover for all persons, irrespective of which travel agent they went through, he would be

661
unlikely to get the right response from the insurance world. If the noble Lord wants to make provision for winding up the Agency, he will find that that is the purpose of Clause 6. If developments make it possible to wind this Agency up, we have power in Clause 6 to do just that. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: The intention of this Amendment is not to implement Clause 6 in some way or another; it is to look beyond Clause 6 and wonder what is going to happen when Clause 6 is implemented and the Fund and Agency are wound up. After all that has been said in another place and now in this House, I should have thought it would be accepted that there are great difficulties. The noble Lord, in disagreeing with what I said, pointed to some of them which management at the moment will experience in running air travel organisation operations. I have not heard anything so far which has answered the question which was in my mind when I drafted this new clause—namely, what actually will happen when Clause 6 has been implemented? The noble Lord went some way towards answering that by saying that the tightening of licensing and the underlying bonding will deal with it. But I wonder if that is so; and that is why I put down this Amendment.
The noble Lord has thrown certain difficulties in the way, and he reminded me of what was said of Mr. Jinnah, who could always find a difficulty for every solution. There are some merits in this new clause. First of all, I made clear on Second Reading that I did not like, and I confess I still do not like, the fact that in this Bill we are setting up a second line of statutory defence. What we are doing is saying that bonding has not been sufficient and therefore Parliament will pass a Bill to collect another lot of money. It will be like a second bonding. I do not like that; it seems like a belt-and-braces approach, like driving two roads, one beside the other, which one so often sees in this country. In an endeavour to overcome that difficulty, I drafted this clause, which is a different idea.
Surely, it is better to use the services which the financial world has to offer rather than by-pass those services, and
662
set up a statutory Agency. The noble Lord said, perfectly reasonably, that he felt the financial world would not be offering their services at the moment so far as insurance is concerned in what is a very difficult business to run. That may be so. But the only thing absolutely certain is that we shall not know, if we do not agree to this new clause. If there is an Agency and a Fund insurance will not be necessary, so nobody will find out. Only by agreeing with this Amendment is it possible to discover whether by consultation between the Authority and the Agency—and, I trust, also the travel industry generally—something can be sorted out. I should have thought that that in itself would be desirable.
May I refer the Committee to the wording of the clause? If the scheme were found not to be workable, the Secretary of State would not bring it in. Presumably the Agency and Fund would continue, although there would be power in the new clause to allow the Secretary of State and the Authority to return to the matter once again. I do not think that that is any reason for rejecting this new clause in principle, although the noble Lord put one technical point. On the contrary, there is every reason for accepting its principle. The Government have no idea what is going to happen if there is a winding up under Clause 6. If the Government do not agree to this Amendment I feel that they have a duty to offer some alternative, which I am still waiting to hear.
Lord BESWICK: The noble Lord has this matter the wrong way round. He is saying he does not know what is going to happen if we implement Clause 6; but we should not implement it until—and after all it is a new industry just coming through a trauma of difficulties—things in the industry had settled down. I indicated—and I believe I carry noble Lords with me—that the CAA, which is a rapidly developing new organisation, will devise licensing techniques and utilise experience in the future, better than it has done in the past, and certainly better than in the days when we did not have the CAA. It is taking on a new task and has not had the chance yet to gain full control of what was an unhealthy growth industry.

663
The outlook seems simple: when there is an improved licensing system with the bonding facility, and some of the less responsible people have been eliminated, when things have settled down a little, it is conceivable that an insurance arrangement, if such a scheme were necessary, could be devised. But, as of now, there is no evidence at all—the agents have not come up with anything, and there is no evidence from any inquiries which have been made—that the insurance world will be able to satisfy by a private enterprise effort the requirements that we say should be met. In that situation it is premature to consider this responsibility, which in any case the CAA have not the power to implement in full. Let us have the Bill; let us continue to police the industry; let us provide this protection in the meantime. Then, if in the years to come it is found to be unnecessary to have this insurance cover, we can implement Clause 6.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that there is a difference of opinion on this matter. In essence, I am saying that not only do I like the idea of using private enterprise in foreseeing the end of a statutory agency but also that I think it would be cheaper. The very small amount of evidence that there is, and which was given in another place, was to the effect that it would be cheaper. The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to this Amendment which was put down for the second time on Report in another place, indeed used words to the effect that he accepted that insurance, if it existed, would be cheaper.
Lord BESWICK: It would be cheaper, but in relation to the responsible companies about which we are not mostly concerned. The difficulty concerns the companies which are most likely to give trouble.
Lord BELSTEAD: This would come out in any scheme which was devised. The noble Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, is speaking in the dark, because in resisting the Amendment it is simply not possible to find out whether or not the CAA, in consultation with the trade or the Agency, could work out a scheme. However, we have given this a good airing and I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. May I just say that I wonder whether those noble
664
Lords with long, experience of Government matters would agree with me in my perturbation over the proliferation of boards and agencies. Invariably they are manned by extremely competent and very conscientious people. Their chairmen are to be thanked for all the time they bring to their work and the amount of work that is done. But the fact of the matter is that, to some extent, they provide a kind of guarantee to industry and commerce which is not necessarily always for the best in these days when we have to make our way in a fashion we have never had to do before. And, of course, these boards and agencies have to be serviced and their expenses have to be paid. So there is a difference in outlook between the noble Lord and myself on that point. He has quite fairly pointed out that, technically, this Amendment is defective. I thank him for what he has said, because he has given me some information; and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Loans to the Agency by the Secretary of State]:
5.43 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert—
(" (5) Interest shall not be charged on any loan under this section except at such a rate and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Treasury, by order prescribe, and any such order shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: We are now approaching the point where we concern ourselves with loans to the Agency by the Secretary of State. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the loans shall be interest free, and the reason for putting down this Amendment is because of exchanges which took place in Standing Committee D in another place. It is not the normal practice in your Lordships' House to quote proceedings in Standing Committees except where Ministers are concerned. I think it would be inappropriate if I were to do so at any great length, but attention was very

665
strongly drawn to the fact that the question of whether the loan would or would not be interest-free gave us cause for considerable anxiety.
Perhaps I might give chapter and verse for your Lordships' information. It occurred on the Fourth Sitting of Standing Committee D on Thursday, 13th March 1975, at column 205 of the report of the proceedings. There we were led to believe by the Minister that the whole of the loan would be interest-free. However, on that day remarks were made which tended to indicate that this might not be so and that regulations might be made at a later stage which would indicate the necessity to have interest payable on the sum or on part of the sum.
Secondly, the clause as drafted brings in retrospection. This is a matter to which we have drawn attention previously on Second Reading and which we took into account in drafting this Amendment. I think it is very clear—from the exchanges in another place and from the remarks which have been made—that there is ample ground for believing that we should include an Amendment to the clause whereby it might be made emphatically clear that interest should not be charged. I beg to move.
Earl AMHERST: Is it not sensible to suggest—as is suggested in this Amendment—that the Secretary of State should have consultation with the Treasury, who presumably would rule that whatever loan is to be made should run pari passu with other Government loans, interest-free or partly interest-free, as the case may be? If the Secretary of State were to overrule that or pay no attention to this recommendation by the Treasury, then it would surely raise the question of why this loan should be different from all the others.
Lord BESWICK: The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has introduced an important consideration here. It is difficult to persuade the Treasury that this loan should be treated in a manner different from any other loans. Certainly they do not wish to put into a piece of legislation a precedent of this kind. Nevertheless, although not establishing the precedent by law, the Secretary of State has said it is not the intention to charge interest; the loan
666
would be interest free. That is something which I confirm, but it was not considered reasonable to put it in a Statute. Moreover, it is conceivable—and this is no doubt what caused anxiety in the minds of noble Lords opposite—that there could be a situation in which there were a series of failures and the demands upon the Fund were especially heavy, so that it would make it impossible for the Agency to repay the Government loan. In those circumstances, it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to go to the Treasury and come to some other arrangement with them. Leaving out this provision, of course, gives an extra degree of manoeuvrability.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will find this to be a sensible way of leaving the matter. I confirm that it is the Government's intention that the loans made to the Agency should be interest-free, at least in all the circumstances we anticipate. If circumstances arose which are not at the moment anticipated, it might well be necessary to review the situation. In any event, it is undesirable to establish in an Act that this Agency shall be treated differently from most others and that the loan should be put down there as an interest-free loan.
Lord BELSTEAD: Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill, there it is said:
" It is expected that repayments of the loans will start in October 1976 and will be completed within the following three years."
The noble Lord has said that there is an undertaking, which he has repeated and for which we are grateful, that this loan shall be interest free. May I ask whether it is the intention that, if the Agency went beyond the expectations of the Explanatory Memorandum, interest might perhaps then need to be charged? Perhaps I might put it a little more specifically: has the noble Lord anything to tell the Committee this afternoon about the amount of retrospective payment which the Government expect? I asked this question on Second Reading and the noble Lord gave me an answer; but this is something which obviously must change from week to week as the liquidators continue their work on the unfortunate failures of last year. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the noble Lord could say, first,

667
whether he has any up-to-date information on what will be the size of the retrospective payments which will have to come out of the levy and also what the income from the levy is going to be. I wonder whether the Department in consultation with the travel trade, have made any assessment about that.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means by going beyond the provisions of the Explanatory Memorandum. The Explanatory Memorandum seems to set out what the intentions are.
Lord BELSTEAD: My meaning is this. One reads in the Explanatory Memorandum about repayments of the loans being completed before October 1979. Are we to interpret the noble Lord as saying that if things go wrong—which I think is the burden of what he was saying—then it may be necessary to make some different arrangements? Would the cut-off point be October 1979?
Lord BESWICK: I am looking into the future now and it would be unwise to be too dogmatic about it. I repeat what is said here:
"It is expected that repayments of the loans will start in October 1976 and will be completed within the following three years."
I said earlier that if something quite unusual happened and if instead of gradually repaying the loan it was found that payments were slipping further back, then obviously some other discussions would have to take place. That is why I say that there is a justification for manœuvre on this point. I was asked about the proportion of the loan which would be used to meet the retrospective payments. The figure I gave in Second Reading was £7 million. I cannot give a different figure. As the noble Lord knows, it will be affected as a result of proceedings now taking place in the courts, and until those proceedings come to an end I cannot give any other figure.
Lord BELSTEAD: To repeat the question—and I think this is important—have the Government any estimate of what the levy income is going to be? Let us, for ease of reference, take next year when it is 2 per cent.: have the Government any idea what the probable income is going to be from the levy next year or what it will be during this winter?
Lord BESWICK: Oddly enough, I have some idea. At 1 per cent. it would be about £3 million in a full year, of which about two-thirds arises in the summer period. At 2 per cent., oddly enough again, it comes to twice the above figure.
Lord TREFGARNE: I wonder whether I may support my noble friend in this Amendment. It rather seems to me—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has confirmed this—that a large part of the loan facility which is being made available to the new Board is to cover retrospective claims from the unfortunate people who suffered from the Court Line failure last year. Those people were told that they would be able to recover money as a result of all sorts of pronouncements from the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State. Some of us thought at the time that those pronouncements were at least ill advised. I do not think it is right for the travel industry to be asked to bear the interest charges, and in due course indeed to repay carte blanche the loan arising out of those pronouncements. There is a strong case for at least part of the loan to be interest-free. In other words, the Government must bear the cost of the undertakings they have given.
Lord BESWICK: I think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is inclined to look at things a little on the gloomy side. He is now asking that they should get part of the loan interest free. I have already said that it is the intention of the Government not to charge any interest at all. I should have thought that he would be more satisfied with that, rather than by saying that in some unspecified circumstances in some gloomy period in the future they might be excused part of the payment. That intention is an honourable one. It will he free.
Lord TREFGARNE: With the leave of the Committee, may I say that I fully accept the assurances which the noble Lord has given. I keep being confused by the contrary remarks made by his right honourable friend in the Standing Committee in another place.
Lord BESWICK: If the noble Lord would like to tell me where there is a difference between what I have said and what my honourable friend has said, I should be glad to look at it.
Lord SANDYS: In support of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, may I say that I think a reference will be found in the report of the Standing Committee on 13th March—a reference which I gave previously. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the assurances he has given here, which have allayed anxiety in this regard. We are keenly aware of the situation and, further, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for bringing out the situation as he saw it, not only in his speech on Second Reading but also in his remarks this afternoon, which have been most helpful. It appears to us that it would be much more satisfactory to withdraw this Amendment, and I do so in the certain knowledge that the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be honoured.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power of the Secretary of State to dissolve the Agency and wind up the Fund]:
5.58 p.m.
Earl AMHERST Earl AMHERST moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert (" always provided that the first charge upon such assets shall be to the reimbursement in due proportions of such persons or organisations who have contributed to the fund.").
The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading of the Bill, I asked what would happen to the assets as and when this new Agency is wound up. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said—and I quote:
" My information does not reach quite so far ahead, but I agree that it is something to which we shall give a little more thought. I think I can say more on this point in the other stages of the Bill, and I shall be very happy to do that."—[Official Report, 28/4/75, col. 1175.]
Therefore I put forward this Amendment in the hope that the noble Lord will do just that.
Lord BESWICK: This Amendment, as originally put, was on a point which aroused some degree of sympathy with me, and I thought that this was something on which we should try to meet what was being said. We have looked further into it and I hope that the noble Lord will accept the difficulties to which I shall refer. They spring in part from the fact
670
that we do not know when the Agency will be wound up or the conditions under which it will be wound up. The money in the kitty at the point in the future when the Agency is wound up may have come from someone who started contributing in August of this year but who, by the time the Agency is wound up, is no longer in business. There would be a situation in which it would be impossible to identify the aggregated contributions. There is also the other point which I put to the noble Lord—I am sure he will be concerned with this. If he wants to see justice done—and he and I are equally desirous of that—he will realise that this money will come indirectly, and when the travel agents make a special charge for it will come directly from the customer. If you have a sum of money to distribute in three years' time, that money has really come from the customer, not from a particular travel agent. How is it going to be possible to identify the customers? Much as I should like to help in this case, I feel that it would be impossible to accept the noble Earl's Amendment. If and when the day comes when the Fund is to be wound up, we shall have to have regard to all the circumstances, consult with the Travel Agents' Association and consult widely with the industry as to what is best to be done.
6.0 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Unless travel agencies run their businesses differently from other businesses, all this talk about customers' money does not really fit in. On previous Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Slater, has spoken about the customer and the customer's money. I should be very surprised indeed if, in fixing the charges they make for whatever services they give, the travel agencies do not take into account the interest they earn from investing the money the customer has paid in advance, and as a consequence of the income from that customer's money the charges they make are that much less. That is what happens in the case of a competitive business such as this. I am not in it and have no interest to declare on this matter, but I should be very surprised indeed if the reason why the charges are reduced on many occasions to a level which has surprised people is not to a large extent due to the income

671
the agencies have had from the customers' money, which they knew they would hold and have invested.
If the customer has already received the benefit of the money he has paid early because it has earned interest, it is not quite right—and I do not think it reflects the way business is run—to give the impression that what business firms do is make their profit and, on top of that, have extra income from money paid in advance. Usually all factors are taken into account and the result is reflected in the tariff which is eventually fixed. I want only to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether, so far as he knows, the travel agencies are run differently? If they are run as normal businesses, the point I am making is sound and it is not fair to speak about customers' money as though the agencies are taking advantage of it. If, on the other hand, agencies are run differently I should be interested to know about it.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has raised a very worrying point. I expressed myself as worried about Clause 6 on an earlier Amendment, a proposed new clause, which I withdrew. I confess that I do not think my new clause would have solved the noble Lord's problem here, although it might have; I do not know. It might be that funds could have been used for alternative arrangements. In any event, that Amendment has been withdrawn. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said and the essence of it was that when the time comes for the Fund to be wound up it will be necessary to have regard and it will be necessary to consult. I hope the noble Lord does not think me discourteous in saying that I do not think he knows, and frankly I do not think I know, either.
The noble Lord has given us a useful piece of information in the last 10 minutes, which is that when the Fund is going fully £6 million will be coming in. May I for the record ask the noble Lord this question, even though it arises on a previous clause? Am I right in thinking that it will be open to the Secretary of State to reduce the percentage at which the levy is paid, or even to turn off the levy tap completely, although the Agency is continuing to run? In other words, if the Secretary of State finds that the Fund has
672
reached £25 million or some such sum, but he still wants the Agency to continue, am I correct in assuming that it will not be necessary to continue to expand the size of the Fund? Otherwise, I think we are going to get into a very difficult situation indeed.
Lord BESWICK: I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, first about whether this industry is run in a different way from other industries. To some extent of course it is. I indicated earlier that in one respect it was different in so far as the customer was often required to pay so far in advance for the product he was eventually going to enjoy. The noble Lord said it would be impossible to identify that element in the cost of the product that was attributable to this contribution. Although I do not know, I suspect it is probable that travel agents will have a surcharge on their fee or cost of holiday which will be specifically devoted to meeting the contribution they have to pay. If that is so, then my argument about this money coming from the customer is strengthened. But, in any case, directly or indirectly it will come from the customer. I hope the point I was making about that was taken: if you want to give back the money to the person from whom it comes it cannot be done by just giving it to a travel agent. It would be as unreasonable for them to pocket it as for the agency to do so. One could make out as good a case against their having it as against the agency. Therefore, I come to the point that if and when—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, kept quoting me as saying, "when the Agency is wound up "; I said, very carefully," if and when"—the Agency is wound up we shall have to consider the circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also asked me what is going to happen when the kitty begins to mount. I can give him the assurance that it will be the intention to have in the Fund only an amount that would be reasonable in relation to responsibilities. That amount could change. If the number of people travelling increases and the contributions increase, the liability also would be increased and therefore it would be impossible to put a fixed figure to it. But the expectation is that this £15 million figure is probably of the order that is necessary

673
to make certain that all contingencies should be covered. If that amount is reached, if the demands on it do not reduce the amount, then it will be the intention to reduce the levy. If we go further and the seas become even calmer and business is even brighter, it could even be feasible that the levy was not collected at all and we might even return to the noble Earl's Amendment and consider whether we were at about the point where we could implement Clause 6.
Earl AMHERST: I thank the noble Lord for his full explanation and for pointing out the difficulties my Amendment would raise, which I appreciate. In the light of that information, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation and supplementary and consequential provisions]:
6.7 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 10, at end insert (" or any flight between places within the United Kingdom, where one of the places is situated in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man; ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, I suppose, in the nature of a probing Amendment and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be able to help me. Clause 7 of this Bill defines, among other things, the nature of the flights that are to be covered by the provisions of the Bill. We read:
"' overseas flight ' means any flight between places one or both of which are situated outside the United Kingdom."
There are two destinations within the United Kingdom to which package flights are sometimes arranged and one of them in particular, the Channel Islands, ought I suggest to come within the compass of the Bill. It is for that purpose that I put down this Amendment. I have nothing further to say in support of it, except that I want to emphasise that this is a destination to which package flights are arranged, sometimes by the smaller but no less efficient companies, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to help me. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was being modest when he said that sometimes there are flights to the two areas to which he referred. In fact, quite a lot of flights go there and I appreciate that he should be concerned about them. I am happy to be able to give him the assurance that he requires. These territories, being dependencies of the Crown and not part of the United Kingdom, are covered by the definition of an "overseas flight" as it stands. Therefore, the Amendment is not necessary.
I did not look quite so worried as the noble Lord is looking, but I asked for a little more information on this point, and I am told that Section 2(2) of The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 provides that:
"In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression 'United Kingdom' shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
This excludes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man since Great Britain means England and Scotland—Union with Scotland Act 1706, Article 1.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I ask the noble Lord why the Government have chosen to make the Bill refer only to overseas flights?
Lord BESWICK: I should have thought one reason would be the difficulties of getting home. We had to consider the human problem. If you go to Southend from London, the difficulties of getting home are less than if you go to Majorca or even the Channel Islands.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Amendment refers only to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has made me wonder whether we ought to have included, for example, the Outer Hebrides. If your charter firm goes out of business, it is not very easy to get back to London from the Outer Hebrides. As my noble friend reminds me, it costs a great deal of money. Why has the United Kingdom been excluded from the Bill? The noble Lord says that it is easy to get home from Southend. Maybe it is, but it is not easy to get home from other points in the United Kingdom. My Amendment does

675
not cover the whole of the United Kingdom. Not being familiar with the Act which the noble Lord has recited to me, my Amendment relates specifically to two points which I thought were within the United Kingdom. Obviously, I am not going to proceed with my Amendment. However, before I withdraw it, will the noble Lord accept that this is a point which perhaps warrants a little further consideration?
Lord BESWICK: I am not quite sure which is the point, but I will consider all of them! If the noble Lord is asking the Government why they are not including Southend and the Hebrides, I am bound to say that I have great difficulty in reconciling this demand with the criticisms of the Bill which were made earlier in the discussion.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am not going to take this argument further. However, it is a matter which we on this side of the Committee can consider at our leisure. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: May I ask the noble Lord a question before we leave this clause? My question relates to surface travel. As I understand the Bill, if a shipping company uses air transport for which an air travel organiser's licence is needed, the levy will have to be paid. My noble friend has just moved an Amendment which has given us some useful information. In reply to the Amendment, the noble Lord has stated that his view is that because overseas flights would involve people who are stranded in considerable difficulties about getting home, this is a reason for making the Bill apply only to overseas flights. May I put the point to the Committee that this does not apply when one is talking about shipping companies. If a shipping line flies passengers to its ships, those passengers never leave British soil; they take off from England and arrive at a ship which is under the British flag. If anything goes wrong, the ship, which is under the British flag, will bring them home.
676
This very much applies to the Bill. Some of your Lordships may know of educational cruises. For several years it has been the practice of a shipping line to station a ship in the Mediterranean and to fly passengers, both children and adults, from British soil out to the ship. I understand that when these cruises start in Greece, the passengers are never considered to have set foot on Greek soil. Technically, they go straight from the aircraft into the ship and come under the British flag. On those occasions, usually the passenger line has the charter of an aircraft on an exclusive basis. Consequently, it becomes a travel organiser and is licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority with an air travel organiser's licence.
This is quite a serious point. Therefore, I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord, and I apologise for not having warned him that I should do so. First, will the noble Lord consider the point I have put to him and, if he feels that it merits support, bring forward on Report a Government Amendment to ensure that overseas flights associated with accommodation on board a British ship are not included in the Bill? Secondly, will the noble Lord now answer whether the Government intend at any time to extend the Bill to surface travel alone, regardless of anything to do with aircraft; and am I correct in thinking that in fact there is no power under this Bill for the Government to do that?
Lord BESWICK: The noble Lord is correct in assuming that under this Bill the Government could not do what he suggests might be done in relation to surface travel. I could not say whether or not this is the intention of my right honourable friend. I know of no such intention at the moment.
The question of the overseas flights which might take place from a point outside the United Kingdom because the passenger has gone there by ship is an interesting one which has not been discussed in my presence. However, I will see whether I can obtain any information about it and let the noble Lord know, or I will deal with it at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Schedule [Additional provisions with respect to the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency]:
On Question, Whether the Schedule shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
6.17 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I ask the noble Lord one question about the Schedule? When one looks at paragraph 9 of the Schedule, which provides, among other things, for the auditing of accounts, I am surprised that the Bill does not provide for the auditing by a properly qualified auditor of the accounts of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency. In support of what I am saying, may I point out that under Clause 4 the Fund will be financed by contributions from air travel organisers. The Department of Trade is authorised to make loans to the Agency, subject to the approval of the Treasury, but these, of course, may not be made after 1977. Repayments are expected to start in 1976 and to be completed within the following three years. Thereafter, the Fund is supposed to be self-financing. I am not an accountant, although my noble friend Lord Lyell is, and I hope he may say a word in support of this. However, as a layman it surprises me that with these fairly complex matters, there is not written into the Bill some requirement that professional audit by independent accountants is required.
Lord LYELL: May I commence my support of my noble friend Lord Belstead by declaring an interest. As he so kindly pointed out, I am a member of the Chartered Accountants of Scotland. It was only late in the day yesterday that I was telephoned by the Chartered Accountants of England, who asked me to raise what they considered to be a very valid point on this Schedule.
As I think noble Lords will be aware, the accountancy profession is very much concerned in any audit, particularly in the audit of an Agency such as this. As I understand it and as the profession understands it, paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Bill gives fairly firm instructions to the Agency to keep proper books of account. This is fairly evident and clear to the layman, and certainly to the profession. The definitions do not allow much latitude in this respect.
678
Secondly, the Agency is given instructions to prepare a suitable form of accounts, as laid down or agreed by the Treasury. I think that this is absolutely reasonable. There is no purpose in presenting accounts which may be suitable for large corporations—for Imperial Chemical Industries or corporations of that kind—when that particular form of accounts is not suitable. However, sub-paragraph (2) states that
" The accounts of the Agency shall he audited in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct with the approval of the Treasury."
I think it is clear that an audit will be carried out, but especially the audit of a body like this—particularly a semi-Government or a Government appointed authority—should have a somewhat clearer code of practice than is laid down in the Bill. This is also the feeling of the profession. The profession itself is keen that an auditor should be of the same standard as one who audits the accounts of a company. His duties are already laid down very clearly and succinctly in the Companies Act 1948, and the profession knows exactly what is expected of it. I think the public, the shareholders of companies, and anyone else, know precisely what the auditor is responsible for and how he may be seen to be carrying out his duty, and how not.
That same Act—the Companies Act 1948—in Section 162 gives an indication of certain statutory powers which are available to the auditors. These include powers to have access to all books and accounts and vouchers of a company, and also to require any such explanations or information as that auditor—it may be a firm or an individual—may require to enable him to satisfy himself that the books are in order, and indeed that the business is being run in a proper commercial manner. Certainly I think the noble Lord and the Government must intend this, but the profession have some slight worries that the Bill does not lay down set rules. If there is a possibility of the Government guaranteeing the powers of the auditors, possibly on the lines of the Companies Act 1948, especially when the Fund goes to recompense the victims of previous misfortunes such as we have heard about this afternoon, the profession would be very grateful.
Lord BESWICK: As the noble Lord has said, the code is laid down in the Companies Act, and when the Secretary of State under paragraph 9(2) of the Schedule gives directions he will require that the accounts be prepared at least to the standard of the Companies Act, and of course by properly qualified persons. But the situation is a little different, in so far as public money is involved—and at the outset it will largely be money provided by the Government, the £15 million loan—in that the audit will be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Thereafter it will be in accordance with normal commercial practice.
The Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

SALMON AND MIGRATORY TROUT (PROHIBITION OF FISHING) AMENDMENT ORDER 1975
6.24 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, I beg to move that the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) Amendment Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be approved. It is the purpose of this Order to include in the specified methods of fishing for salmon and migratory trout in the sea prohibited by the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) (No. 2) Order 1972 all other forms of gill net in addition to drift-nets which are at present covered by that Order. The 1972 Order continued until 1983 the ban on fishing for salmon and migratory trout off the Scottish coast and the mouth of the Tweed by certain specified methods; namely drift-net, trawl-net, seine-net, troll and long line. Along with its predecessors since 1962 it was intended to stop all fishing for salmon and migratory trout in the sea in Scottish waters other than by the traditional coastal and river methods of fixed engines, beach seining and net and coble. But of recent years new methods using gill nets have been introduced which, while not illegal in terms of the 1972 Order, are contrary to the spirit of that Order.
The modus operandi of gill nets is to enmesh the fish whereas the traditional forms of netting such as bag nets and
680
stake nets catch them by trapping. These gill nets range from short lengths of fixed net set close inshore and fixed at both ends to nets anything up to one mile in length attached to the shore by a length of rope, which in turn can be up to three miles long and swinging free at the seaward end. These latter are, in effect, drift-nets but it has been argued that in terms of the 1972 Order they are legal in that they are attached to the shore. They could in fact be described as "anchored drift-nets" and to date they have been found mainly off the Berwickshire coast. But the indications are that their use will spread if left unchecked. The shorter fixed nets to be found doer inshore, are already being used extensively around the coasts, especially the north and West coasts. They are particularly deadly as they can be moved almost at will and set right into the mouths of the smaller rivers which are not protected by statutory estuary limits and are thus open to being fished by fixed engines right into the river.
Investigations both at home and across the Atlantic show that the catch rates of these nets can be double, treble, and according to Canadian evidence, even six times the catch of our traditional bag and stake nets. Our scientific advice is that it would be most unwise to permit any uncontrolled expansion of the salmon catch such as the development of these new methods could produce. This applies especially at this time when the containment of the Greenland salmon fishery has relieved one of the major threats to our salmon stocks.
Apart from the actual catching potential of the nets themselves, we have strong reason to suspect that they are being used as a cover for illegal drift-netting operations from fishing vessels. This applies both to the "anchored drift-nets" and the inshore nets. Patrols off the Berwick-shire coast last year resulted in a conviction for drift-netting under the guise of "anchored drift-netting" and there are reports of substantial landings of salmon by fishing boats in the North-West which have clearly been caught out at sea. The Order relates of course only to fishing carried out using a boat. Gill netting on the shore between the high and low water marks where the net may be set and worked without the use of a boat is not prohibited by it.

681
Your Lordships will have noted that a complementary Order—the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Restrictions on Landing) Amendment Order 1975—has also been laid before Parliament. It is subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution by the House. It does no more than suitably amend the 1972 Salmon and Migratory Trout (Restrictions on Landing) Order to bring it in line with the 1972 Prohibition Order as amended by our Prohibition Amendment Order. The aim of the 1972 Restrictions on Landing Order was, of course, to prohibit the landing of salmon caught by any of the prohibited methods in the closed areas.
May I say that quite apart from the considerable quantities of fish that have been caught by this method, there is another serious aspect, in that it is estimated that about 40 per cent. of the fish which may be caught in these nets in the first instance manage to get away, but probably so damaged that it is unlikely they will survive. So that potential damage to our salmon stocks, if this method were allowed to go unchecked, would perhaps be even greater than what has happened in the past off Greenland. When, at long last, we are reaching a satisfactory position in this respect, it would be a disaster if we allowed this depredation of our stock to start on our own shores. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) Amendment Order 1975, laid before the House on 24th April, he approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having explained this Order to us. We know that it has been very easily possible in the past few decades to kill all our own home-bred salmon and sea trout. This is something that could easily have been done if we had wanted, but, luckily, we have been sensible both in this House and in the other place and have managed to contain our greed. Surely, it is obvious that if one does not leave the breeding stock there is nothing there for the future.
Some 10 years ago the Hunter Report was published, which, of course, did not
682
mention anything about gill netting, because at that period gill netting was in its infancy. But I think I am right in saying that it had been practised a little off the coast of Northumberland. Momentarily we might regret that the ideal of Lord Hunter and his Committee, that every river should have its own controlling management, has never been acted upon. I know that all Governments since the Hunter Report was published have had many other things to do, but I think the Report raises one or two points which Parliament could act upon, when we can get around to it.
My Lords, this Order will be of tremendous help in stopping the practice of catching sea trout by gill nets, especially in coastal waters. Sea trout, in particular, are susceptible to this method of fishing. This Order will help to push out the quick-time operators, and the amateurs out for a "quick buck ". All of us would agree that the conservation of these species of salmon trout and salmon is absolutely essential. The prevention of the use of gill nets will put a stop to a number of acts which are in conflict with that objective, especially since nylon monofil has been used in their manufacture.
I have heard that some people think they will have a claim for compensation if this Order is passed. As nylon monofil gill nets have been in existence for only the past decade or so, I think most of the people using them have been enjoying a bonanza which would have led to the extinction of the species. I, for one, welcome the fact that there must be a return to methods of catchment which are not wasteful, which will yield a return, which will damage less fish and which will not lead to the extinction of the species. The crux of the matter is that there must be a stock for the future. I think the Americans and the Russians have done some work on this aspect. It has been shown that with gill netting, some 40 percent—that is the figure that the Minister spoke of, and I think the Americans and Russians have proved this—of the fish drop out of the net. They either get caught up and drown—I know it is an extraordinary thing to say that the fish drown, but this does happen; one can catch fish which are half decayed—or, if they get away, their scales and flesh

683
are damaged, which means they are probably harmed both for breeding and eating purposes.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mention that we are making great progress in the international sphere. In the past, we have heard about fishing off Greenland, especially with our friends the Danes and the Germans. There have been criticisms in the past that they have not co-operated enough. If we had allowed this form of catching sea trout and salmon to go on, we would not have had a leg to stand on if we had gone back to the international conference table on this matter. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on taking this action to preserve this very important species from extinction both in our rivers and around our coasts. I commend the Order to your Lordships.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, if I may be allowed a brief word, may I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Order. I say this not only on behalf of those of us who support its introduction, but also on behalf of the poor salmon. Scotland's record has been a proud and good one for many years past in regard to the conservation of the species of salmon. As man's ingenuity is always developing new ways of catching fish, the authorities in Scotland have kept the balance by checking, and if necessary banning. I think it is much to the credit of those responsible for the fisheries of Scotland that this Order has been introduced. We welcome it in this House, and every salmon which escapes the massacre and the damage of the gilling net will be grateful to this House.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, as one whose wife lost four fish when fishing for salmon, I congratulate the Government on the introduction of the Order. However, I would raise one small point. Will the Government undertake to keep a sharp eye open for further developments such as the gill net which, in future, may need to be banned for similar reasons?
Lord HOY: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene, but as one who had to take steps a long time ago to deal with the protection of salmon, I congratulate my noble friend Lord
684
Hughes on the introduction of this Order. I would not have been provoked to say anything except that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, mentioned the Hunter Report, which has been on the record for a considerable number of years. I remind the noble Lord that no Government did anything about it until the Labour Government took it up. They were the people who made it active, and brought out protections. Gill netting was not thought of when Lord Hunter was reporting; it had not been introduced, but the monofil net had been. We had to have protection against that. If there has been a development in this form of fishing which is causing such harm, obviously we would all want to act. We are grateful to my noble friend for acting so quickly, and preventing the further destruction of salmon.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for what has been said. It is a most unusual experience for me to be receiving unanimous support for anything I suggest to this House. As I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is patiently waiting for his Unstarred Question, I will not take the risk that he will be provoked into dissenting from this unanimity out of sheer protest. On the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the answer is, Yes, one of the things we have learned from this development is that we must constantly be on the look out for the next dodge to get around this.

CIVIL DEFENCE (PLANNING) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1975
6.40 p.m.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES rose to move, That the Draft Civil Defence (Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 28th April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I discuss with these Regulations the Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1975. The need for the Regulations arises from the reorganisation of local government which will take effect in Scotland on 16th May 1975. The new Regulations, which are before you in draft, place responsibility for planning on the regional and islands area councils. The district councils are enjoined

685
to provide information and assistance to the other authorities, but have no primary planning responsibilities. The opport-tunity has also been taken to consolidate the many Regulations which have been made since the passing of the Civil Defence Act 1948 and to omit those which no longer come within local authority responsibility, for example, those relating to nursing.
The Government have chosen the regional and islands councils as the main planning authorities because most of the services which would be vital following a hostile attack, for instance, police, fire, water, are controlled by the regional and islands area councils. That is not to say that the services provided by district councils will not be important too. However, the system envisaged for Government in the survival period following possible nuclear attack provides for a single chain of command coming down from Central Government through the chief executive of the regional council, who will be appointed regional controller, and then to the chief executive of the district council, as district controller. This is quite different from the normal relationship between the region and the district. But a different system would be essential after a nuclear attack when the disruption would make the conventional distinctions between central and local government, and between different levels of local government, quite meaningless. The effect of the Draft Planning Regulations is to consolidate and simplify, in a single Statutory Instrument, the main Civil Defence planning functions of local authorities. This will give the new local authorities a clear statement of their statutory duties. If approved, the Regulations will come into force on 16th May, the day on which the new local authorities assume full responsibility. The authorities will receive guidance, at intervals, from the Scottish Office on detailed aspects of planning.
May I now refer briefly to the second set of Regulations, the Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1975. These Regulations, which will also come into effect on 16th May 1975, amend the Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Regulations 1949 in a minor and consequential way. Regulation 2 revokes Regulations 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the 1949 Regulations. These Regula-
686
tions deal with matters relating to Joint Committees now redundant following the more general provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. It also revokes Regulation 7 of the 1949 Regulations, which gave the Secretary of State power to impose limits on the resources which a local authority could employ on Civil Defence. The general discretion given to authorities to allocate the funds available to them, subject to the overriding limits imposed by the national interest, has made this kind of provision outmoded. Finally, it removes from Regulation 9(1) of the 1949 Regulations a number of definitions which are superfluous following on the revocations mentioned earlier.
Discussions will take place over the coming year with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with the aim of ensuring that the most effective use is made of the limited amount of funds available. For the present, however, we felt it would be unfair to make changes in the grant arrangements when resources are not available to make a thorough change in the operations to be assisted. I can assure your Lordships that these Regulations are in no sense warlike instruments. They are intended to provide a basis for local authorities to take simple precautions at very little cost as an insurance against the effects of the possible use by a hostile power of the terible weapons available today. We all hope, of course, that such plans will never need to be implemented, but that is no reason for not making them and having them ready for use. I therefore commend the Draft Regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Civil Defence (Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 28th April, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation of these two Draft Regulations. Reading the first Regulation, Regulation 4, is harrowing to a degree. I can only echo the penultimate paragraph of the noble Lord's speech. I pray and hope, with him, that such things will never need to be done.

CIVIL DEFENCE (GENERAL) (SCOT- LAND) AMENDMENT REGULA- TIONS 1975
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 28th April, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 28th April, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
6.45 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 8th May, be approved. There have in recent years been three major Reports upon the organisation and jurisdiction of courts in Northern Ireland. While the Draft Order which is before you today does not purport to implement all, or even the majority, of the wide-ranging recommendations made in those Reports of three Committees—which sat under the chairmanship of Lord MacDermott, the present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and Lord Justice Jones respectively—it will none the less give effect to some of their most significant recommendations. It also contains certain other requisite amendments of existing legislation governing the administration of justice in Northern Ireland: of this latter category of amendments the most important is undoubtedly the increase in the number of Lords Justices of Appeal in Northern Ireland for which provision is made in Article 3.
Since its creation in 1920 Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has been comprised of two Lords Justices and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland: in 1968 the number of puisne judges in Northern Ireland was increased from two to five, but no provision was then
688
made for adding to the strength of the Court of Appeal. Although the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1962 enable former judges of that Court and judges of the High Court, at any time, at the request of the Lord Chief Justice, to sit and act as judges of the Court of Appeal, it is desirable that the permanent strength of that Court should be sufficient to ensure that out of a court of three no more than one member should be acting in a temporary capacity. Accordingly, with the increased commitments of the permanent members of the Court of Appeal, both in criminal and civil proceedings at first instance and, in particular, with the increased administrative commitments of the Lord Chief Justice, it is now necessary to increase the permanent membership of the Court, and Article 3 makes the necessary provision.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the need for early implementation of this provision at a time when Sir Robert Lowry, the present Lord Chief Justice, is beginning his chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Convention. I think it would be the wish of your Lordships' House to wish him every success in this very difficult job he has taken on. I have every reason to suppose that both last night and today he has been following our affairs with interest.
Turning to the remaining provisions of the Order, may I draw to your attention Articles 4 and 5 which, in amending and consolidating several existing provisions relating to assizes in Northern Ireland, go a considerable way towards implementing a recommendation of the Jones Committee that a system of Crown Courts should be established in Northern Ireland. The creation of a Crown Court system in Northern Ireland would involve the redefinition of the role of judges both of the Supreme Court and of the county court and a major reallocation of their jurisdiction and functions: as such it would require legislation of greater scope and complexity than may appropriately be included in an Order in Council at this time. The provisions of Articles 4 and 5 will, however, permit greater flexibility in the arrangement of assize business and the involvement of county court judges in the work of assizes. Thus many of the organisational and structural advantages of a Crown Court system will be achieved while preserving the most

689
familiar features of the existing assize system until a comprehensive review has been completed.
A relatively minor, but important, provision of law reform is achieved in Article 6, which renders of no effect any provision of an enactment of the Northern Ireland Legislature which excludes the powers of the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction by making orders of certiorari and mandamus. This Article also consolidates the relevant provisions of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 in relation to Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament which apply to Northern Ireland. Powers relating to the appointment of county court judges and resident magistrates in Northern Ireland now vest in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and the provisions of Article 7 will transfer from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor other powers closely related to those of appointment—namely, the assignment of county court judges and resident magistrates to divisions and districts.
Both the Interim Report of the Lowry Committee and the Report of the Jones Committee recommended an increase in the monetary limit of the general civil jurisdiction of the county court in Northern Ireland, which was fixed in 1955 at £300. In view of the depreciation in the value of the pound since 1955 and of the recent increases in the corresponding jurisdiction in England and Wales, this figure is now totally unrealistic, and accordingly the provisions of Article 8 and Schedule 1 will increase it from £300 to £1,000. This will bring the monetary limits of the general civil jurisdiction of the county court in Northern Ireland into line with the corresponding limits of jurisdiction in England and Wales which was the objective recommended by the Jones Committee which reported at a time when the limit of jurisdiction in England and Wales was fixed at £750 and thus recommended £750 rather than £1,000—which is now the relevant figure. Corresponding increases are made in relation to other jurisdiction of the county court.
In the light of this increase in the county courts' civil jurisdiction, provision is made, in Article 10, for an increase in the monetary limits of jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction in debt
690
and ejectment proceedings. Article 11 provides that, as in England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor may designate one justice of the peace for each county and county borough to be keeper of the rolls for that county or county borough. Keepers of the rolls will exercise the functions formerly exercised by the custodes rotulorum, the principal of which is to maintain a list of justices of the peace for their area. In the context of justices of the peace, I must add that a further recommendation of the Jones Report is implemented by Article 12, which will enable clerks of petty session to exercise the statutory functions of justices of the peace in relation to the signing of summonses.
My Lords, as you have heard, this Order comprises a miscellany of amendments of existing Northern Ireland legislation, some of which are closely interrelated and others of which are independent of the rest. All the amendments have, however, an important factor in common, for all are designed to ensure the efficient and expeditious administration of justice in Northern Ireland. As such, I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the Mouse on 8th May, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this comparatively complicated Order. I have no questions to ask the noble Lord, but may I take the opportunity of the introduction of this Order to pay tribute from this side of the House to those who are involved in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, whether it be in petty sessions, the county court, or the High Court or Court of Appeal. Their work is difficult and sometimes dangerous, and they are owed a debt by those who believe that the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is well carried out. May I also echo what the noble Lord said: the very best of good fortune to Sir Robert Lowry in the responsibilities which now lie ahead of him.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reception of the Order.

EEC: PRESS REPORT OF PEER'S SPEECH
6.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL Lord SHINWELL rose to ask the Leader of the House whether the allegations about opponents of the EEC contained in a speech by the Earl of Bessborough as reported in the Daily Telegraph of 6th May are in accordance with the traditions of the House and whether he will make a Statement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which appears in my name on the Order Paper. It is an Unstarred Question and, on the assumption that some Members of your Lordships' House may not have the Order Paper in their possession, I ask permission to read the Unstarred Question, which is as follows:
"To ask the Leader of the House whether the allegations about opponents of the EEC contained in a speech by the Earl of Bess-borough as reported in the Daily Telegraph of 6th May are in accordance with the traditions of the House and whether he will make a Statement."
On the 6th May the Daily Telegraph reported a speech by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, which contained certain references to those who are in opposition to continued membership of the EEC. When I read this report I considered that the references, to put it mildly, were offensive. For the purposes of accuracy I will read what appeared in the Daily Telegraph. This is the heading:
"EEC Opponents 'Ragbag of fanatics'".
Then it proceeds:
"Lord Bessborough, British Vice-President of the European Parliament, said last night that the opponents of membership of the EEC were 'allied on the one hand to the most extreme Marxists in the country and, on the other hand, to a neo-Fascist National Front.'
"Speaking at the opening of the Arundel branch of the Keep Britain in Europe' campaign, he asked: 'How could you vote for such a disreputable ragbag of fanatics? There can be no doubt that we shall have greater power and influence within the Community than without.'"
Perhaps in order to ventilate my generosity, I will read the latter part of
692
the report. I quote from the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough:
" There is no question of our sovereignty being in danger within the EEC since, through the Select Committees, Members of the British Parliament are informed of Commission proposals before the Council meets to take any final decisions."
If a report of this character had indicated the views of some person outside your Lordships' House, perhaps somebody of little consequence, I should probably have ignored the references. After all, we Parliamentarians, particularly those of extensive and prolonged experience, are accustomed to criticism, and frequently indulge in criticism. This is not uncommon. We give our knocks and we must be ready to accept them. But coming from the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, who is described in the report as the Vice-President of the European Parliament—presumably the European Assembly, but let us not make heavy weather of that—a man with a disciplined intellect, a person of stature and a prominent Member of your Lordships' House, not some unknown person outside this Assembly but somebody speaking with authority and with all the accompanying dignity of his position in the European Parliament and in this House, one could not possibly brush it aside.
It occurred to me when I read the report that I could either put down an Unstarred Question, which subsequently I did, or regard it as a breach of privilege of your Lordships' House. Indeed, I consulted the Chairman of Committees to ascertain whether one could raise a matter of privilege in this House as is possible in another place, and I was assured that that was possible; and in order to endorse and fortify what I was told I read rather more meticulously than usual the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. It occurred to me that an Unstarred Question which relates to a statement, whether fair or unfair, made not by somebody outside this House but by a Member of it, could not ordinarily be a matter for an Unstarred Question and subsequent debate. But eventually I decided to adopt that course instead of making it a matter of privilege, which might have led to complications; it could have been somewhat prolonged, and when one has to refer to another Member of your Lordships' House it is essential that

693
the matter be disposed of summarily. Hence the Unstarred Question.
It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, spoke in general terms, in global terms embracing every person in the United Kingdom who, for valid or other reasons, dislikes the whole conception of the EEC and in any event prefers that we should withdraw, and at the same time may have particularised, made reference to other persons whom he would not regard as disreputable or Marxian. That is a possibility. But if the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, were generalising and embracing the whole, and particularised by making rather more favourable references to others—for example, to myself or to those of my colleagues in your Lordships' House who in a recent debate decided to be in the minority; a foregone conclusion—then they found themselves according to expectations geographically.
Some of the references are rather peculiar but before I deal with them I should like to refer to some of the Members of your Lordships' House who come under attack; for example—and I regret that he is not in his place—the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, formerly known as Robin Turton, the Father of the other place, one of the most highly respected of men, and I think that that reference will be acceptable to every Member of your Lordships' House who has even a nodding acquaintance with the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire. Yet he is described as a Marxian. I have heard many of his delightful speeches and I have never heard him make the slightest reference to dialectical materialism. As for the theory of value, I can put it even more accurately and refer to the social labour which makes up the content of production. Members of your Lordships' House must have read Das Kapital and will be familiar with the subject, but certainly not my noble friend—and I call him a friend because we were very friendly in another place—Lord Tranmire. To describe him as a fanatic and a "ragbag", was, I thought with great respect to Members of your Lordships' House, going a bit too far.
Then there was my noble friend Lord Soper, a Christian gentleman and a real gentleman. He may be acquainted with Das Kapital, though I would not swear to it because I should have thought he
694
was more evangelical than Marxian, but he is included in this category. When I reflected on some of the others who were brought into this embrace, I wondered what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was thinking about. What did I do about it? Apart from putting down an Unstarred Question, I wrote to the noble Earl directing his attention to the report in the Daily Telegraph, and suggested—
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not recall receiving the noble Lord's letter.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Earl and I have a copy of the letter with me. I addressed it to him at Hyde Park Gate and perhaps I had better give the number in case I got it wrong.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I do not think that will be necessary, my Lords. I did not receive it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry that the letter did not reach him. It is wise to be accurate about these matters, so perhaps I had better read the letter. It was dated 6th May, the day I read the report in the Daily Telegraph. The letter was very short, as my letters usually are these days. This is essential because I receive so many and I am left without a secretary. I wrote:
" You are reported in the Daily Telegraph today as saying that the opponents of membership of the EEC were ' allied on the one hand to the most extreme Marxists in the country and, on the other hand, to a neo-Fascist National Front' and you added, ' How could you vote for such a disreputable ragbag of fanatics? ' As this is a serious reflection on myself and other Members of the House of Lords, may I ask if you are prepared to repeat this slander in the House? "
For it is a slander. I do not know whether the noble Earl received the letter.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: No.
Lord SHINWELL: The noble Earl shakes his head. But I do not know why he did not receive it. Are we to raise this with the Post Office? I assure him that I put a first class stamp on the letter. It is no use the noble Earl submitting an alibi. That will not work. I dismiss the Marxist allegation, but another accusation associates the anti-Market group with the National Front. Lord Soper and the National Front?

695
And who are the others round about? It will not do.
If I may say so, again with respect, this was a sneer associated with—and I shall use jargon which is not original—character assassination. That is what it is. Why the noble Earl did this sort of thing, I do not know. It may well be that, in the course of his observations, he said something favourable about those who, for valid reasons and with the utmost sincerity, dislike the concept of the EEC and would like to withdraw. It may be so but, if it is so, what have we to say about the Daily Telegraph? Are we to assume that it received the report and decided—freedom of the Press, which is a principle we all accept—to be completely impartial and to report all the nasty things about the opponents of continued membership of the EEC and deliberately to exclude all the favourable references which occurred to the noble Earl in the course of his observations?
What have we to say about the Daily Telegraph? We have a case. How to proceed with that case is a matter for consideration but, meanwhile—and this is all I want to say further about the matter—it is no use making a song and dance about it. I intensely dislike what appeared in the Press. I am not associated with a "ragbag of fanatics ". If I may digress for a moment, on this question of the Common Market I have taken a stand ever since Harold Macmillan made his announcement in another place in 1960. I have never changed my mind, and I believe that I am on good ground when I say I do not want to reintroduce the subject of the Common Market.
The point of real substance which I want to make is that we in this Assembly are told that we must avoid acrimony, and must treat each other courteously, must speak without fear or favour but sincerely and honestly. That is in the Parliamentary Companion and I am only seeking to carry out the rules of the club. If any Member of your Lordships' House transgresses, it is for the Leader of the House to express an opinion, so my Question was addressed to him. Unfortunately, he has accompanied Her Majesty on a visit to the Far East. One cannot blame him for that. Probably
696
he deserved a holiday, but he was not available to reply to my Question. But it is for the Leader of the House, or for whoever is representing him on the Government Front Bench, to say quite explicitly and without any ambiguity what he thinks about the statement made by the noble Earl.
On the other hand, if the noble Earl feels that he has transgressed and, as an honest man—and I am not discussing his views on the Common Market—feels that he ought to apologise for having made a reference which, at any rate by implication if not directly, referred to some of his colleagues in this Assembly, the matter can rest there so far as I am concerned. But to have allowed the matter to go by default would never have done. That is the purpose of my Question. I have sat here since half past two today. I have not had a drink or a bite, and I have hardly had a smoke. I have been patient almost beyond endurance. I have had to listen to questions by Members on the Opposition Front Bench which reminded me of my youthful days in another place, many long years ago when I indulged in filibustering. I am not accusing noble Lords of filibustering, but I did think that they were trying to prevent me from making a speech. However, I have managed to make a speech and I have done it with the utmost restraint and with no malice in my heart, but only with a desire to ensure that, when Members of your Lordships' House make reference to their colleagues, they do it with accuracy, honesty, justice and fairness.
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for whom all in this House have great affection and respect, for giving me an opportunity to comment on the Press report to which his Question refers. Although I recognise the problems of space in a newspaper, I regret the habit which the Press sometimes has of selecting a few sentences out of a serious 25-minute speech on the workings of the Community and isolating one or two remarks. I might add at this point that there were extremists of both the Left and the Right at the meeting in question who interrupted my remarks. What I regret is that no mention was made in the report of my subsequent

697
answers to questions, in which I said that in the middle of the spectrum of the anti-Market movement there were certainly moderate and patriotic people and, I would add, evangelicals, whose sincere views I respected, even if I felt that they were misguided. I made it clear that, in my view, not all were fanatics. I might add, as the noble Lord raised the point, that I received a few letters from people connected with the National Front who say that their organisation is not Fascist, If that is the case, I should certainly withdraw the adjective. None the less, we must be realistic and we must recognise that members of the National Front and Marxists—if not all Communists—do support the campaign to quit the Community.
I was interested to read that, speaking in Manchester on Saturday, the Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, also attacked the extremists of both Left and Right who oppose our entry into the EEC. It is indeed they who would make the economic situation in this country even more serious than it already is and result in the rest of the world losing confidence in us altogether. We know that the whole world, including the Commonwealth, wishes us to stay in—with the exception of the USSR and General Amin in Uganda. It would be a disaster if we do not stay. As The Times says today, on page 5, the very warmth of the Soviet endorsement of anti-EEC arguments should serve as a caveat.
I will not take longer than 30 more seconds, my Lords. With regard to the question of sovereignty, which is also mentioned in the newspaper report, I can only repeat what I have said in many speeches up and down the country: there is no question of the sovereignty of our own Parliament being in danger, since through the Select Committees Members of both Houses are informed of the Commission's proposals before the Council takes final decisions, so that any proposals unacceptable to the British Parliament can be vetoed by a British Minister in the appropriate Council of Ministers. I hope that the noble Lord will accept these remarks in the spirit in which they have been made.
7.21 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Earl, Lord. Bessborough, would inform us that
698
he had been grossly misreported in the Daily Telegraph. What he has said by way of half apology is that he made it quite clear that there were certain people of moderate conviction who were quite respectable and patriotic citizens, who for their own reasons believed that it would be best if we stayed out of the Common Market. I know full well that in political life one must give and take, and very often some quite severe remarks are passed about one both in another place and here. But, my Lords, we are not talking purely about Members of your Lordships' House, or for that matter Members of another place. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was talking about—and he has not corrected the statement he made—tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who, for perfectly good and patriotic reasons, believe that it would be disastrous for this country to stay within the Common Market.
One of the two versions is truthful. If the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was dissatisfied with the report that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, the opportunity was open to him to write a letter in correction to the editor, sayin: "You have not exactly got my meaning here, because you have not been quite fair to the people with whose views I disagree." But the noble Earl has not done that at all. In fact, had he done that—in probably slightly more generous terms than those that he admitted today—there would have been little cause for complaint. I assume that the noble Earl read the report of his speech and that, apparently, he was perfectly satisfied with it—
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, if he will forgive me, I must interrupt the noble Lord for just a moment. I said in my earlier remarks that the words I spoke were about those who were genuine, patriotic, and I even added, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Soper," evangelical" people. I said they were true people and that they held these views sincerely. Perhaps the noble Lord was not listening to my speech at that moment, but I said that very positively.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Yes, my Lords. So now we are left with the question of how to undo the damage which has been caused? The question is, how does the truth catch up with the lie? Unfortunately, for reasons that at the

699
moment are a little obscure to me, the proceedings in your Lordships' House are possibly not adequately reported in the national Press. Indeed, I was surprised the other day when a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in the course of the debate on the economic situation did not even merit a mention in the national Press. How, therefore, is the position to be corrected? If the noble Earl, after having purused tomorrow's report of this debate, says that his remarks have not been given sufficient prominence to correct the impression he has created, can we have his undertaking that he will write to the Press himself and repeat the words that he has said today? It is only in that way that the impression can be corrected.
When the referendum campaign started my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave his advice as to how the campaign should be carried out. He said he hoped that personalities would not be involved, that the argument would be a calm one, and that both sides would put forward a reasoned case to the people at large. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has honoured that obligation, and so indeed, I might say, has my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Peart, whose remarks I heard on television last night and who, I thought, presented a very moderate case.
But, my Lords, the position in the referendum campaign is rapidly becoming like this: precisely because some of the pro-Marketeers cannot refute the factual arguments being put forward by those who do not believe in the Market, there is a tendency—widely reported in a national Press that supports the pro-Market case throughout—for many personal denunciations to take place. I quote Mr. Heath, who only the other day said that we were "telling lies". My right honourable friend the Home Secretary accused us of truth bending. It would be far better if the debate were to be carried out in a calm way without the necessity for these personal insinuations.
I know perfectly well that those concerned with land, property, finance, as well as industrialists, the Establishment, the national Press, and some of my noble friends, are in favour of the Common Market. That ought to give them con-
700
fidence. If it gives them confidence, there is no real necessity for them to proceed on the lines upon which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was reported to have proceeded and which have been followed in other quarters. I hope that there will be a temperate debate, because when all this is over the British people have to work together, whether we are in or out of the Market. I sincerely hope that the people who are conducting this debate behave in a manner that makes that unity possible when the debate is concluded.
7.29 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, gave a complete answer to my noble friend Lord Shinwell. What Lord Bessborough says in Arundel is not my business and, with respect, it is not the business of this House. As long as that rule applies to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and applies equally to George Wigg, then I have no complaint. What is said in this House is answerable to this House. What we say outside is answerable in the courts of the land; and if what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said in Arundel had been associated with my name, he would have had a writ with the speed of lightning. But having exculpated him on the grounds that he made a speech, that he was subjected to interruption and that the Daily Telegraph distorted what he said, that seems to be a complete answer, because all of us who are engaged in public life at some time or the other have had similar treatment. You balance the swings against the roundabouts. I hope that I make myself clear on that issue. I think also, if my noble friend Lord Bruce will allow me to say so, that it borders on impertinence to tell the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, what he should or should not do in relation to the Daily Telegraph. If he is not satisfied with the report in the Daily Telegraph, that is entirely a matter for him and he does not need me to teach him any lessons on that.
I want to teach him a lesson in another direction. I think it rather silly, holding the position he does as Vice-President of the British delegation to Strasbourg, to equate the foreign policy of the Soviet Union with General Amin. We live in a world in which power matters. If the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, does not

701
know it, then I will assure him that you cannot say that of course the Soviet Union is opposed to the EEC without reflecting for a moment, why? This is where I come in. I have never believed that the Common Market is an argument about a free trade area, an argument about the price of food. This argument and that of the control of industry leaves me absolutely cold; because if one looks at the statements made in this House recently it is clear that we have elevated a discussion about a free trade area into a theological dispute. To my mind—and I have held the view, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell knows, for very many years since I was his PPS—what matters is the power position in the world. There are very few of your Lordships who have come to recognise one fact; that the power struggle in the world has left Europe and has gone East and South. Whether we like it or whether we do not like it—I do not happen to like it, but I recognise the fact—we are no longer at the races; Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.
The Soviet Union objects to the EEC. I wonder why. Here, again, I have been influenced by the writings and thinkings of Mr. Heath. It is obvious that Mr. Heath got from M. Pompidou an acquiescence that was denied by de Gaulle to Macmillan and which Mr. Wilson could not get agreement about. Yet we have in Mr. Heath's Godkin lectures, repeated in 1970, his discussions with M. Pompidou about the provision of a European nuclear deterrent. It is my view that the day that the Germans—not Europe, for there are only nine countries—but if ever the day comes when there is a nuclear deterrent, held, as Mr. Heath put it, in trust for Europe, then on that day the Third World War starts. I say that for a very simple reason. The conflict between the Teutons and the Slavs has lasted for a thousand years. In the First World War it cost the Russian people complete destruction and 20 million casualties. In the Second World War, the destruction was even more complete and there were another 20 million casualties. No Soviet leader is ever again going to allow the Soviet Union to be put at risk because of some ephemeral (or what looks to be ephemeral) agreement which may grow into a hydra-headed monster; and what they will do
702
if they have any sense, is what we should have done, what the Conservative Government should have done if they had had the guts; that is, to stamp on it before it starts. That is what it is all about.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I cannot understand. He is the expert on the Common Market, not me. He talked the most unqualified, unmitigated nonsense on the issue of sovereignty that man has ever spoken or written. The argument is not about Parliamentary sovereignty. It is about the sovereignty of the British people. It is nonsense to say of the orders made in Brussels that, because they are passed to a Select Committee of this House or of the other place, that deals with the question of sovereignty. Does he not know that the veto does not apply in the Commission, that matters come before them and that the Commission's views on matters are absolute? The only way they can be upset is not by the exercise of the veto but by the Court in Luxembourg. Therefore, you cannot talk about sovereignty in relation to the sovereignty of this House, without realising what is fundamentally at issue. What irks is the fact that we have at the present time M. Giscard d'Estaing—
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord WIGG: We have M. Giscard d'Estaing acting as he should. One of the things I regret is that M. Giscard d'Estaing is not an Englishman. He acts wholly in accordance with the interests of France. Recently there was a conference in Paris in which he took the Chair. Who was Britain represented by? It was by one of the other eight through the means of an official. The running on this matter was made by M. Giscard d'Estaing, not in the interests of the Common Market but in the interests of France. Therefore, to talk about sovereignty in the sense that the noble Earl talked about it tonight seems to me complete nonsense. Now I will give way.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I was only going to ask the noble Lord what, peradventure, this has to do with the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper?
Lord WIGG: My Lords, that is an asinine interruption—because what I am doing with the matter on the Order Paper is answering the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I would have been willing to get up and say that Lord Bessborough is right; but he went on—he introduced the Soviet Union and General Amin, not me. If he introduced it, then I can answer it. Or is it again the old story that there is one set of rules for the Tory Party and another for everybody else? I am not playing that game. If the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in his defence introduced the Soviet Union and Amin and the issue of sovereignty, then I will do the same; unless there is a rule that there is one set of rules for the Tory Party and another for somebody else. That, as far as I am concerned, you can get stuffed on! I am not playing it.
I want to come on to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I do not happen to agree with the Prime Minister about the point he made in his broadcast, that on June 5th everything is going to be over and we are all going to sit down and live happily ever after. No noble Lord believes that—because, in addition to saying some pretty tough things about Marxists and neo-Fascists and so on. Mr. Jenkins in Manchester last night said something else. All sorts of promises were made: so that after June 6th the promissory notes will come to be presented. If anyone thinks that on some of those promises which have been made—the abolition of inflation, full employment, the increase in the standard of living, the great market that all are going to be in—if noble Lords think people like me (whether we are Marxists, neo-Fascists or what the hell we are) are going to belt up on that, then they have made another mistake. In the months ahead we are running into difficult times. The one thing we want—and the Prime Minister understands this: he has said it in another place, and in a broadcast—is that when it is all over the only people who can save Britain are the British people. If you want the British people to unite, you will not use the language which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, is reported to have used.
This is what I do not understand about the Tory Party. The foundation upon
704
which they have built their Party, and which has enabled them—wrongly, I think—to exercise political power has been that they are a national Party, that they speak for all sections of the community. You should not start off by saying that 40 per cent. are fanatics; you may think it, but if you have any political sense you will not say it. It is now said in the newspapers, on television and on radio, and people come to believe it. If that is what you think of myself and others like me, do not come along afterwards and think you are going to get our co-operation, because you will not do so.
7.41 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may make some brief remarks. I must confess to your Lordships, with shame, that I have now been a Member of this House for 30 years. It has struck me that there are three things about it: first of all, we try to keep a sense of proportion about things and we do not, as a rule, get too upset. Everybody in this debate, with the exception, if I may say so, of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has kept a sense of proportion about it. Unfortunately, I missed a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, but I am sure he kept a sense of proportion. He knows as well as most of us that on a public platform one sometimes gets excited and says things which in a considered way one would not say. I seem to remember when the noble Lord was in another place, that in electioneering he said things which now he would think rather extravagant. But we all do it, and I do not think we want to take it too seriously.
Secondly, it has always seemed to me that we in this House are fairly courteous to each other and we do not worry too much about the niceties of procedure in another place. We have no Speaker. If we had a Speaker we would be continually rising with points of order; but we have to keep order ourselves, and as a result we are courteous to each other. On the whole, it works out very well. When people say nasty things about us, whether inside or outside the House, we do not worry too much. We may hear it said that all hereditary Peers are idiots, or that all noble Lords who have come up from another place are export rejects, or whatever it might be; but we do not mind

705
about that. We know we are none of these things, but that we are good and sensible people.
I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg; I remember him castigating this House, saying it was contemptible, contained members of the Fifth Column, and all the rest of it. I do not agree with him, but he is perfectly entitled to say these things. It is his opinion, but do not let us get too excited. What my noble friend Lord Bessborough said is reasonable. He acknowledges, as I do, that there are people who disagree with him, who are not extremists or fools. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is one of them, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is another, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is another. I hope, having aired this matter, we might really let it die in peace and all go home.
7.44 p.m.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I accept the spirit of what the noble Lord has said. I will not join in the discussion about the virtues or otherwise of remaining in the Common Market. I appreciate the frankness with which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, addressed the House tonight. I was impressed that he had the good sense to do this, but he reverted to a technique we all know, which is to lambast the Press, and in his case a paper which is on his side, for its selectivity. We all know the danger of selectivity in news. We know the way in which newspapers are produced and the great speed which has to be used in selection. But newspapermen and newspapers are not the only people who are guilty of the sin of selectivity.
I was impressed of course by the noble Earl's quotation from The Times today. You will remember it was as follows:
" The very warmth of the Soviet endorsement of their arguments and activities might serve British anti-Marketeers as a caveat."
What the noble Earl did not do was to read the next paragraph, which I will now do. It has the dateline, Hong Kong, 12th May, and it reads:
"China wants a strong and united Europe and is greatly interested in the issue of Britain's EEC Membership. China will establish official relations with the … EEC."
Who said that? Not one of your extremists, but Sir Christopher Soames, an employee of the Commission who has the
706
laudible ambition of becoming Leader of the Tory Party. What, in effect, he was saying, and what, in effect, this story says is, "Yes, one part of the Communist world is in favour of our going into the EEC, and that is the extreme part of the Communist world, the Maoists, but the more or less sober denizens of Moscow want us to come out ". In fairness to the House, having scolded the Press for its selectivity, the noble Earl should have been more careful in his own quotations.
7.47 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I have two brief points. First, I agree very much with what I thought was the strictly relevant part of my noble friend Lord Wigg's remarks. The question raised by my noble friend Lord Shinwell seems to have nothing to do with the traditions of the House, or indeed with privilege. It was a speech made outside the House; it mentioned no noble Lord by name or by implication. It seems to me a bad precedent to put this Question down on the Order Paper. Everyone can play at this game; all of us could raise this Question, if any noble Lord, including my noble friend Lord Shinwell—who has quite a rough edge to his tongue—says anything unpleasant or strong or possibly grouping us with someone else. It would be awful if we always put this Question on the Order Paper in future and I hope that your Lordships will not take my noble friend Lord Shinwell's action as a precedent to follow. I am sure none of them will take this Question at all seriously.
7.49 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I answer the Question in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House, or Acting Leader of the House, but I could have answered it as one of those in the "ragbag" to which the noble Earl. Lord Bessborough, referred. But although I was in the same lobby as my noble friend, I did not take the same exception to the words. I had a look to see what was meant by this word "fanatic". I found that it was a word invented during the Civil War to describe a nonconformist—and a better description of my noble friend I find it difficult to discover.
My Lords, I agree with what has been said, that we must have regard to the rules of the House, and my noble friend

707
asked me if I would say whether the speech was in accordance with the traditions of the House. May I read out to you part of Standing Order No. 31:
" That all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborn, and whosoever answereth another man's speech shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill taken,… "
Then Standing Order No. 32 goes on to say:
" For avoiding of all mistakes, unkindnesses, or other differences which may grow to quarrels, tending to the breach of peace, it is ordered, that if any Lord shall conceive him self to have received any affront or injury from any other Member of the House, either in the Parliament House, or at any Committee, or in any of the rooms belonging to the Lords House of Parliament, he shall appeal to the Lords in Parliament for his reparation."
The fact of the matter is that Arundel is not included in the list of places, so I think that while we can all say that trivialising and personalising arguments in the EEC debate is to be avoided, what was said by the noble Earl is to be taken as his contribution and we should leave it at that.
I would just make one other point before sitting down, which is this. The noble Earl himself has said that he spoke for a matter of 25 minutes, yet in the Daily Telegraph there is a quotation which possibly took between 40 seconds and one minute to say. I do not accept what was said by my noble friend Lord Castle about the Press as against the selectivity of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I think there is a growing and dangerous tendency on the part of the Press today to distort argument, to select things from speeches and so to sour our public life that it could well bring about the very disunity that we were decrying in a debate the other day.
We had an example of this in that debate to which perhaps I might call attention. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, came along here to move a Motion appealing for unity. He made a speech which I thought was moderate in tone and which I supported in the spirit in which I thought it was made. Then
708
the Press generally picked out one portion of that speech, and we had headlines appearing like the following: "Bosses want Benn tamed"; "Watkinson flexes his muscles for the CBI"; "CBI chieftain issues threat of rebellion"; and so on. That speech of the noble Viscount, as it was reported, was an extremely dangerous speech. It added to a dangerous situation—
Lord WIGG: Would my noble friend give way?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am about to finish. It added to what was a dangerous situation, and I think that while we can say, as I have said, that between us we want to avoid trivialising and personalising this argument, with the best will in the world it is sometimes difficult to mount a debate which will really inform the public when we have the kind of reporting that we see today.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend bear with me for one second? The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, may have sounded very moderate, but before he made it in this House he took the unprecedented step of delivering the speech on the one o'clock News, and it was repeated again at five o'clock. This was all part of a well-planned exercise. The speech was moderate here, yes. But, outside, its impact was deliberately vicious. That was not the fault of the Press; that was the fault of the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson.

BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [H.L.]
Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments; then, in accordance with the Order of the House of
710
Thursday last, Bill, with the exception of Part VIII recommitted to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.